Re: The very nature of a nation
Paul Bramscher
> From my point of view a nation is a group of people following a
> contract necessary to set rules and provide services that can't be set
> or provided by a group following the rules of the market - a plain
> anarchy quickly would develop to a completely unsocial market-economy.
It may be that nations (even the most oppressive) are natural byproducts
of anarchy and libertarian principles. As humanity (and proto-humanity)
went from Alpha Male coercion to family and clan, to tribe, city-state,
nation and toward a United Nations, each step has been a progression
from one form of dominance, influence and hegemony to larger one.
If anyone who espouses a free market (like the other illusion: free
will) suggests that the best we can come up with is a greed-based
economy in which every transaction is strictly between buyer and seller,
you'll find no case of it in human history, and no example of a
society without coercion among the higher mammals in general.
Doubtless, even in so-called pre-industrial egalitarian societies there
was a simmering Alpha Male pattern of exploitation (as we see more
broadly in the mammal kingdom with regard to territory and sexual
monopolies).
What we percieve as over-reaching authority of government arises in a
"free market" of government alternatives. The government that exists is
the most appropriate to the greatest number of people under its rule, or
else it would be otherthrown. Oppression exists because a suffient
number of its citizens are shameless denialists with regard to their own
lack of dignity, or human carnivores with regard to oppression
as-foreign-policy abroad.
> The simple question: What did I miss?
>
> Quite obviously I missed something, since the activities of most (if not
> all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
> services mentioned above.
Not necessarily. The Germans could have otherthrown Hitler, the
Americans could impeach Bush. But the excesses of each were within the
tolerance level of the society. It all depends on how deeply they've
cultivated denial, ignorance and fear among a sufficient number of citizens.
It also depends on how you define "government". Today's situation in
America is best described as a plutocratic despotism with strong
currents of cronyism. Whether this is a bona fide government, and what
sort, is up for grabs.
Immortalist
"AE" <hid...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c9l6ls$s6t$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> From my point of view a nation is a group of people following a
> contract necessary to set rules and provide services that can't be set
> or provided by a group following the rules of the market - a plain
> anarchy quickly would develop to a completely unsocial market-economy.
>
But however quickly, these predictable stages would probably happen over and over
again till we have the same problems as today;
Five Forms of Primitive Society
[A] - BANDS
[B] - TRIBES
[C] - CHIEFDOMS
[D] - FEDERATION/PARAMOUNT CHIEFDOMSHIP
[E] - STATE
Six Forms of the Modern State
[1] - THE PRINCELY STATE
[2] - THE KINGLY STATE
[3] - THE TERRITORIAL STATE
[4] - THE STATE NATION
[5] - THE NATION STATE
[6] - THE MARKET STATE
---------------------------------
[A] - BANDS
A band is a small, autonomous group of people (often as low as twenty, and never
more than a few hundred) made up of nuclear families that live together and are
loosely associated with a territory on which they hunt. A band political
structure is typically found amongst societies with a hunter- gather economy.
Band societies have no specialized roles. Social order is maintained through the
informal mechanisms of gossip, ridicule and avoidance - in other words through
public opinion.
---------------------------------
[B] - TRIBES
A tribe is of the order of a large collection of bands, but it is not simply a
collection of bands. The ties that bind a tribe are more complicated than those
of bands. Leadership is personal-charismatic-and for special purposes only in
tribal society; there are no political offices containing real power, and a
"chief" is merely a man of influence, a sort of adviser. The means of tribal
consolidation for collective action are therefore not governmental.
Technically, the tribe is a group of bands. The tribe is, of course, a larger
society tied together by familiar bonds. Family structures known as lineages,
clan, moieties, and phratries form the primary bonding mechanisms. The local
groups that compose a traditional tribal society are communal and strongly
social, with members linked by kinship ties.
Tribes have developed kin-based mechanisms to accommodate more sedentary life, to
redistribute food, and to organize some communal services. Public opinion plays a
major role in decision making.
Tribal people tend to think in certain ways. They tend to be egalitarian, think
humans are part of nature itself, the world is composed of dualities that form a
harmony, and life is designed to work for the good of the community - good of the
whole. Tribal people also stress consensus in determing what is good for the
whole.
One of the easiest tribes for us to examine since we live in Arizona is the Hopi.
Hopi traditional political organization can be called a theocracy. Traditionally,
Hopi villages were ruled by established clan theocracies. The High Priest of a
village was (and still is) called the kikmongwi and served as father of the
village. The kikmongwi usually appointed at least one spokespman to make his
wishes known to the outside world, and to serve as a source of information about
the world. Various Crier Chiefs, Kiva Chiefs, and other leaders formed the
village government; clan relationships usually dictated who would receive
specific ceremonial and governing positions. Each Hopi village was autonomous
with various villages having special clan and religious relationships with one
another. In a sense, traditional Hopi government was not democratic. It is true
that the priests, religious leaders, warriors, and kikmongwis would listen to
various opinions before making decisions, but government was not necessarily by
consensus. Yet Hopi are deeply tribal in the way they think and consensus was and
is important. They would and do think in terms of what is good for the whole when
leadership considers a decision. So they balance the need for leadership and
their tribal ways of thinking.
---------------------------------
[C] - CHIEFDOMS
Chiefdoms are societies headed by individuals with unusual ritual, political, or
entrepreneurial skills. The society is kin-based but more along hierarchical
lines than a tribe. Chiefdoms are associated with greater population density and
display signs of social ranking.
The chiefdom society is also more complex and more organized, being particularly
distinguished from tribes by the presence of centers which coordinate economic,
social and religious activities.
Whereas tribes have some grouping that can informally integrate more than one
community, chiefdoms have some formal structure integrating multi-community
political units. The formal structure could consist of a council with or without
a chief, but most commonly there is a person-the chief-who has higher rank and
authority than others. The position of chief, which is sometimes hereditary and
generally permanent, bestows high status on its holder.
Unlike a tribe in which all segments are structurally and functionally similar, a
chiefdom is made up of parts that are structurally and functionally different
from one another. A ranking system means that some lineages, and the individuals
in them, have higher or lower social status than others.
Chiefdoms can be divided into ones that take on a more simple, kin-based
organization and those that are more complex where there is a more developed
regional hierarchy with a paramount chief and lesser chiefdoms. The simpler form
has centralized decision making for better mobilization of manpower and
exploitation of resources than is possible in a tribal form of society. The more
complex chiefdom has a greater measure of authority but still lacks a bureaucracy
to administer food surpluses nor to distribute and store resources. The society
is more divided along two lines - nobility and commoners. Nobility tends to
compete for leadership, prestige, and religious authority making the chiefdom
relatively unstable.
---------------------------------
[D] - FEDERATION/PARAMOUNT CHIEFDOMSHIP
A union of a number of distinct tribes or chiefdoms. Chief rules from largest
settlement. Smaller settlements ruled by sub-chiefs generally related to the
chief and under his control.
The father of Pocahontas and the brother of the chief Opechancanough, who
organized the great assaults on the Virginia colony in 1622 and 1644, Powhatan
(a.k.a. Wahunsunacock) was the ruler and also the architect of a paramount
chiefdom that covered nearly all of eastern Virginia when Jamestown was founded
in 1607. As a paramount chief his powers were considerable, but they fell short
of what the English expected of a "king."
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_031100_powhatan.htm
---------------------------------
[E] - STATE
Anthropologist Robert Carneiro (1970) defines the state as "an autonomous
political unit, encompassing many communities within its territory and having a
centralized government with the power to collect taxes, draft men for work or
war, and decree and enforce laws." Here again it is the notion of a centralized
government that distinguishes the state from the decentralized type political
organization. States represent highly complex organizational structures that
function to control large societies. They are associated with large territories,
administrative bureaucracies, a high degree of specialization, and large, dense
populations. States represent a major departure from earlier kin-based societies.
A non-kin-based relationship between rulers and those who are ruled marks a state
as a major departure from other forms of societies.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/glues/societyintro.html
---------------------------------
THE MODERN STATE
Families in the late 1400s tried to enhance their authority and security,
promising those living under their authority security from an attack from outside
forces.
Constantinople fell to Islam in 1494 after its wall was broken by
projectile-firing cannon. Nicolo Machiavelli, Italian diplomat and political
philosopher, wrote in 1519 that "No wall exists, however thick, that artillery
cannot destroy in a few days."
-----------------------------
[1] - THE PRINCELY STATE
Europe was changing. The expansion of a money economy was breaking down the old
agricultural feudalism and a new order of legitimacy was needed. Italian cities
were the great money powers of the time and had come to rely on professional
soldiers. Ruling families were creating a political entity called the "princely
state."
Machiavelli, wrote of walls, towers and moats having become obsolete and of
princely states needing an alternative form of security. For his city of Florence
he believed there should be a conscripted militia. A princely state, he believed,
needed a professional armed force rather than seasonal mobilizations by medieval
knights.
A prince, wrote Machiavelli, should act in the interest not just of himself but
in the interest of the state. He wrote that a prince should create institutions
that serve and evoke loyalty from his subjects, and that the state should
maintain permanent embassies in other lands and diplomacy based on good
information.
Machiavelli was intertwining ... constitutional and strategic capabilities. It
was a move away from a prince ruling merely by decree. It was a move from private
authority to the formation of public authority. In other words, a prince should
be a servant of the state.
The state exists to master violence. The state began with the establishment of a
monopoly on violence within the homeland. A state that does not protect its
citizens from violent crime and does not protect the homeland from attack by
other states would have ceased to fulfill its most basic reason for being.
------------------------------------
[2] - THE KINGLY STATE
With weapons development and the organization of greater bodies of troops for
warfare, the "kingly state" arose -- a larger entity than the princely state.
As had a prince in a princely state, a king, writes Bobbitt, promised his
subjects security from attack from without, and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,
"ratified the role of the kingly state as the dominant legitimate form of
government in Western Europe."
The modern secular state was beginning and wars of religion were at an end.
Kingly states were territorial powers and developed some rivalry with the Roman
Catholic Church, whose powers spanned individual states.
The kingly state was a domain of absolute authority that made the king the
personification of the State, and kingly states took on the added promise of
internal stability. They had large professional armies that were great
investments, and large-scale pitched battles were seldom risked. Frederick the
Great was a typical ruler of such a state.
--------------------------------------
[3] - THE TERRITORIAL STATE
Since the 17th century, the basic form of government has been the sovereign
territorial state, that is, the exclusive ruler of a distinctive domain. Such
sovereignty was a mixture of external recognition, states that were organised and
behaved in a way acceptable to other members of the international system, and the
capacity to prevail over lesser powers within and to exclude trans-territorial
political actors.
Once such a form of exclusive government is established it requires
legitimisation, since it imposes on the subject one primary loyalty instead of
the competing claims of the various political and social agencies of the Middle
Ages. That loyalty was first supplied by religion; overcoming the religious wars
enabled states to territorialise their religious constitutions and to exclude
competing confessional claims on loyalty. Only then could states be really
sovereign and build legitimisation on the basis of religious identification and
dynastic loyalty. The model states in that regard were England, the Netherlands
and Sweden - all could complete the transition to nation states without
fundamental upheaval.
Territoriality and nationalism still dominate the forms of state legitimisation,
despite high levels of international trade and cultural interchange. The reasons
why territorial forms of government continue to predominate and only they are
unlikely to be superseded by international agencies or trans-territorial
political forces are fourfold:
- It is still a fundamental principle of the international system that there be
no territory without an effective and exclusive ruler who can bear the
responsibility for events arising from within its borders. Without such rulers
'black holes' are created that suck in and destroy the prevailing forms of
international order through terrorism and crime.
- It is also the case that an open international economy, a space of exchange
between national territories, only works if it is defined and defended by public
power, which in the last instance means states. So-called transnational companies
realise this and cluster in the G7; over 90% of the FT 500 global companies are
based in North America, the EU or Japan.
- Trans-territorial political agencies have two key defects: they are exclusive
and thus weakly legitimate, a fact that limits the political claims of most
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and they find it hard to control members,
they have the option of voluntary compliance (most NGOs) and extra-legal
compulsion (criminal and terrorist networks).
- The populations of most states are not economically mobile. They are neither
rich enough nor poor enough to move, lacking the skills of the international
technocracy or the desperation of economic migrants. Thus they share the national
territory as a community of fate.
----------------------------------------
[4] - THE STATE NATION
In the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, kingly states that survived
developed into state-nations. Nations are societies (older than civilization),
and state-nations are states that provide its people civil and political rights
of popular sovereignty. Britain was one such state-nation. The French Revolution
transformed France from a kingly state to a state-nation.
A state-nation was a state that was mobilized as a nation. It was a national,
ethnocultural group. The state-nation did not take direction from common
people -- in other words, the nation. The state-nation was not responsible to the
nation; rather it was responsible for the nation.
But the state-nation trusts the common people enough to arm them. It was the
state-nation that brought about the great military conscriptions -- which
Napoleon exploited.
---------------------------------------
[5] - THE NATION STATE
Add democracy to the state-nation and you have the nation-state.
Nation states were constructed from the 18th century onwards out of sovereign
territorial states and they remain the dominant form with three varieties: the
patriotic republic (France, USA), the ethnic nation (Germany, Poland) and the
civic nation (Australia, Canada).
- The "Long War" as the Reason for the Nation State:
The "Long War" is a term for the conflict that began in 1914 with the First World
War and concluded in 1990 with the end of the Cold War. The Long War embraces the
First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Second
World War, the Korean War, the War in Vietnam and the Cold War.
The Long War can be understood as a single conflict fought over the
constitutional issue of what form of the nation-state-fascist, communist or
parliamentary-would succeed the imperial states of the 19th century.
During World War I, Bolshevism gained strength in the Russian Empire and fascism
developed in Italy. And in the wake of the Great War, Bolshevism solidified its
power, fascist states arose, first in Italy and then in Germany -- and a military
regime in sympathy with fascism arose in Japan. Fascism lost in World War II. The
Soviet Union continued to declare its brand of government as the legitimate form
of government -- superior to other forms of government -- in the era known as the
Cold War. The Cold war ended in 1990. The authoritarian rule of the German and
Austro-Hungarian monarchies had vanished, as had the rule of the Japanese
militarists. The Soviet Union had collapsed. What was left after 1990 was a
predominant recognition of liberal democracy as the legitimate form of
government.
-------------------------------------
[6] - THE MARKET STATE
The "market-state" is the latest constitutional order, one that is just emerging
in a struggle for primacy with the dominant constitutional order of the 20th
century, the nation-state. Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a
promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state
promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen. There are three
models of the market state, the entrepreneurial, the mercantile and the
managerial market states.
As we move from the nation-state to the market-state, deterrence and assured
retaliation cannot provide strategic stability because threats to the state today
are ubiquitous and easy to disguise. We cannot deter various novel forms of mass
destruction because of the indeterminate sources of such attacks. The strategy of
nuclear weapons cannot protect the critical infrastructures-including the virtual
infrastructure of public confidence and security-of the new market-state. This
will not eliminate reliance on weapons of mass destruction, however. It might
even bring about conditions that make their use more likely.
We can devise doctrines and institutions that are capable of providing common
goods for the new society of market-states. These common goods include organizing
expeditionary forces to destroy terror networks, developing shared missile
defense systems, providing security guarantees as a means of averting weapons
proliferation, resisting the regionalization of trade, and creating markets in
education, environmental protection, and public health. (Failing to do so, we
will set the stage for a cataclysmic war in the early decades of this century.)
---------------------------------------
http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=267
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/bobbitt/qna.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-bobit.html
http://www.opendemocracy.com/themes/article-2-690.jsp
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/pbobbitt/shieldofachilles/bookexcerpt.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/anchor/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0385721382&view=excerpt
http://www.politicalreviewnet.com/polrev/reviews/POQU/R_0032_3179_125_1002676.asp
> Of course there are few additional problems since one can't easily
> leave a nation and join another one because one prefers the rules of
> this other nation, but generally the above is about what defines a nation.
>
> The simple question: What did I miss?
>
You were born into this stuff and must form an intellectual position in order to
change it. If you desire to leave it may take some time but you can.
> Quite obviously I missed something, since the activities of most (if not
> all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
> services mentioned above.
>
They are just differing approaches within the range of having the capacity or
ability to provide such sevices.
>
> P.S.: Sorry for crossposting, but I didn't know whether alt.politics or
> alt.politics.theory would be the better address and anyway I wanted to
> drop my question as well in alt.philosophy.
>
The ability to cross post did not exist at one time and was added on later so
people could include like minded people in one post.
tg
> From my point of view a nation is a group of people following a
> contract necessary to set rules and provide services that can't be set
> or provided by a group following the rules of the market - a plain
> anarchy quickly would develop to a completely unsocial market-economy.
>
> leave a nation and join another one because one prefers the rules of
> this other nation, but generally the above is about what defines a nation.
>
> The simple question: What did I miss?
>
> all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
> services mentioned above.
>
>
States exist to control resources for the benefit of members
(citizens) of that state.
One can't easily leave one state to go to another because that would
diminish the per-capita resources of the destination state.
In a situation where resources, population, and technology are in
balance, there is no need for a state. If there is no need for a
state, any system of organization would work fine. Depending on the
equilibrium point chosen, complete anarchy would be possible, but so
would complete socialism.
-tg
AE
> ...
> [6] - THE MARKET STATE
>
> The "market-state" is the latest constitutional order, one that is just emerging
> in a struggle for primacy with the dominant constitutional order of the 20th
> century, the nation-state. Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a
> promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state
> promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen. There are three
> models of the market state, the entrepreneurial, the mercantile and the
> managerial market states.
While I do agree with you concerning the promises of nation-state and
market-state I dislike this new promise:
While "promise to better the material well-being" is something that
affects all people in the state - and affects them for sure - "promise
to maximize the opportunity" means in a global economy that few (which
are able to use this opportunity) are winning and majority is losing.
The winners might to some degree be the fittest, but mostly they are the
ones that inherited the best starting point.
Communism failed because liberal democracies were better for majority of
people, but why do you think market-state would be more acceptable than
the current nation-states for majority of people?
> As we move from the nation-state to the market-state, deterrence and assured
> retaliation cannot provide strategic stability because threats to the state today
> are ubiquitous and easy to disguise. We cannot deter various novel forms of mass
> destruction because of the indeterminate sources of such attacks. The strategy of
> nuclear weapons cannot protect the critical infrastructures-including the virtual
> infrastructure of public confidence and security-of the new market-state. This
> will not eliminate reliance on weapons of mass destruction, however. It might
> even bring about conditions that make their use more likely.
Accoring to your words you are a citizen of the US, right?
I don't think anywhere else in the world the fear of weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of terrorists or of any other "ubiquitous
threats to the state" is prevalent.
> We can devise doctrines and institutions that are capable of providing common
> goods for the new society of market-states. These common goods include organizing
> expeditionary forces to destroy terror networks,
A strategy that doesn't work at all - Afghanistan made the supposed
terror network reshape, Iraq only strengthened terrorism and
anti-americanism.
> developing shared missile defense systems,
To defend against what missiles?
As far as I can see only a small number of nations owns long-range
missiles and even these ones are changing to cruise missiles which can't
be intercepted using the missile defense system developed by the US.
> providing security guarantees as a means of averting weapons proliferation,
Good idea - of course some nations like the US and Russia won't want to
give up this market.
> resisting the regionalization of trade,
Why?
> and creating markets in education, environmental protection, and
> public health.
Whatever this means in reality.
> (Failing to do so, we will set the stage for a cataclysmic war in the
> early decades of this century.)
Not likely: Sowjet Union broke down and apart without starting the big
war and China doesn't win anything killing the consumers of their products.
Arab nations and Israel might blow up Middle East and India and Pakistan
could destroy each other - both would have a severe impact on global
economy, but that's all.
I think the only danger are the US - I hope they'll go as peacefully as
the Sowjet Union did.
> ...
>>Quite obviously I missed something, since the activities of most (if not
>>all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
>>services mentioned above.
>
> They are just differing approaches within the range of having the capacity or
> ability to provide such sevices.
Nevertheless I wonder why we are allowing our nations to interfere more
than absolutely necessary in our lifes or why we are financing military
adventures that are complete waste of ressources.
> ...
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > [6] - THE MARKET STATE
> >
> > The "market-state" is the latest constitutional order, one that is just
emerging
> > in a struggle for primacy with the dominant constitutional order of the 20th
> > century, the nation-state. Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a
> > promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state
> > promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen. There are
three
> > models of the market state, the entrepreneurial, the mercantile and the
> > managerial market states.
>
> While I do agree with you concerning the promises of nation-state and
> market-state I dislike this new promise:
>
> While "promise to better the material well-being" is something that
> affects all people in the state - and affects them for sure - "promise
> to maximize the opportunity" means in a global economy that few (which
> are able to use this opportunity) are winning and majority is losing.
>
I am revising this philosophy for I believe the next state after the market state
is the federated market state and then after that the regional federated state
market.
I was thinking of that the other day;
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3dWdnbGdTql7ZyDd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
Will one or more of these six possible outcomes happen to the world?
[1] Like-minded and mild-mannered democratic states will together construct a
stable and peaceful global order. [2] The withdrawal of the Soviet Union will
lead to renewed rivalry across the European Continent and the return of
multipolarity with fault lines reemerging among its nation-states. [3] Different
cultures hold competing views of both domestic and international order-and thus
are destined to clash. Four blocs will compete for dominance at the intersection
of the world's major civilizations. [4] The globe will be divided along
socioeconomic lines with wealthy and healthy industrialized nations constituting
one bloc, impoverished developing nations another. The prosperous nations of the
North will be unable to cordon themselves off from troubles in the South. [5]
Globalization is the dominating geopolitical feature of the new century with the
expansion of a global market compelling all states to play by the same rules
rewarding countries that liberalize their economies and democratize while
punishing harshly countries that centralize control of economic and political
life. [6] Two developments push the world to a multipolarity return to
great-power rivalry, the rise of Europe and the decline of American public
support for internationalism, which makes it difficult for the United States to
honor commitments and bear the burdens of sustaining order.
-----------------------------------
Six Geo-Political Maps of the World
[1] With the demise of the Soviet Union and the triumph of democracy history is
coming to an end, an end state in which like-minded and mild-mannered democratic
states will together construct a stable and peaceful global order.
[2] Since the bipolar distribution of power the East-West conflict played a
central role in preserving peace for decades, the withdrawal of the Soviet Union
will lead to renewed rivalry across the European Continent and the return of
multipolarity with fault lines reemerging among its nation-states.
[3] Different cultures hold competing views of both domestic and international
order-and thus are destined to clash. Four blocs (Judeo-Christian, Eastern
Orthodox, Islamic, and Confucian) will compete for dominance. The main fault
lines of the future will emerge at the intersection of the world's major
civilizations.
[4] The globe will be divided along socioeconomic lines with wealthy and healthy
industrialized nations constituting one bloc, impoverished developing nations
another and since the prosperous nations of the North will be unable to cordon
themselves off from troubles in the South, refugees, environmental disaster, the
transmission of epidemics, crime and corruption, and collapsing states will
ultimately pose threats to even the most advancecd countries in the world.
[5] Globalization is the dominating geopolitical feature of the new century with
the expansion of a global market for goods, capital, and production transforming
the world compelling all states to play by the same rules since the market will
reward countries that liberalize their economies and democratize and treat
harshly countries that seek to maintain centralized control of economic and
political life, punishing their stock markets, their currencies, and their
societies.
[6] Two developments are pushing the world back to multipolarity and a return to
great-power rivalry. One is the rise of Europe, which is acquiring both the
economic and political heft necessary to challenge American leadership and its
own political identity as a superpower. The other is the decline of American
public support for internationalism, which makes it increasingly difficult for
the United States to honor commitments and bear the burdens of sustaining the
existing order. The end of U.S. primacy will usher in a more unpredictable and
unpleasant world of competition and conflict between the traditional great
powers.
The End of the American Era - by Charles Kupchan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158/qid=1085984236/
> The winners might to some degree be the fittest, but mostly they are the
> ones that inherited the best starting point.
>
> Communism failed because liberal democracies were better for majority of
> people, but why do you think market-state would be more acceptable than
> the current nation-states for majority of people?
>
Communism and pure unregulated free markets with always fail, the "mixed economy
always wins;
A "mixed" economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a hodgepodge
of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of the lack of
principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of intellectual chaos. It is the
attempt to gain the advantages of freedom without government having to give up
its power.
A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce positive
results, because they always force people to act against their own interests.
When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other regulations in the
hopes that more control will produce better results. Sometimes the results are so
destructive they must either be removed, or the people must be violently
oppressed to make them accept it.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_MixedEconomy.html
In economics and politics, a mixed economy is an economy which combines regulated
free market capitalism and a limited number of socialist institutions and state
ownership of some sectors of the economy such as
social security
environmental regulation,
labor regulation,
product safety regulation,
progressive taxation
public education
health care
Most democratic countries, including the United States, have mixed economies. It
is nearly impossible to have pure capitalism (the government regulates nothing)
or pure socialism (the government runs everything), but the term mixed economy is
generally used when an economy has reasonably significant portions of both
socialism and capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Mixed Economies
Somewhere between the complete laissez-faire capitalism of the market economy and
the strict central controls of the command economy lie the territories of the
mixed economies. In practice, every economy in the world is some form of a mixed
economy, but there are vast differences between them in terms of how much of each
economic theory they support. Generally, however, mixed economies will have
areas that are public (closest in principle to the command economy) and areas
that are private (most similar to a market economy).
Private Sector
These are areas of a nation's economy that are left to the self-regulating
devices of the market economy. If the government is involved in this sector at
all, it is only to function as a referee (to ensure fair competition between all
competitors). In Canada, many areas of the economy are within the private
sector. A quick trip to the mall will expose us to competition, profit motive,
entrepreneurs, privately owned land, labor and capital, and the laws of supply
and demand.
Public Sector
These are areas of a nation's economy deemed too important or not profitable
enough to be left to the private sector. Governments in mixed economies will get
involved in the production of some goods or services in order to guarantee
essential services to all citizens or to try and encourage private interest in
the economy. In Canada, services like public transportation and postal service
are examples of areas deemed too important to all citizens to leave to the
instabilities of the marketplace. Recently, in a wave of privatizations (selling
public sector companies to private owners), services like telephone companies,
liquor stores and registry services have been taken from the public sector and
placed in the private sector.
http://www.cssd.ab.ca/tech/social/tut9/lesson_25.htm
> > As we move from the nation-state to the market-state, deterrence and assured
> > retaliation cannot provide strategic stability because threats to the state
today
> > are ubiquitous and easy to disguise. We cannot deter various novel forms of
mass
> > destruction because of the indeterminate sources of such attacks. The
strategy of
> > nuclear weapons cannot protect the critical infrastructures-including the
virtual
> > infrastructure of public confidence and security-of the new market-state.
This
> > will not eliminate reliance on weapons of mass destruction, however. It might
> > even bring about conditions that make their use more likely.
>
> Accoring to your words you are a citizen of the US, right?
>
> I don't think anywhere else in the world the fear of weapons of mass
> destruction in the hands of terrorists or of any other "ubiquitous
> threats to the state" is prevalent.
>
Come to Europe in 10 to 20 years after their federated state market takes control
of the world and USA is playing second fiddle, the we in USA take a break and let
them take over for a while.
Alan McIntire
> AE <hid...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c9l6ls$s6t$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> > From my point of view a nation is a group of people following a
> > contract necessary to set rules and provide services that can't be set
> > or provided by a group following the rules of the market - a plain
> > anarchy quickly would develop to a completely unsocial market-economy.
> >
> > Of course there are few additional problems since one can't easily
> > leave a nation and join another one because one prefers the rules of
> > this other nation, but generally the above is about what defines a nation.
> >
> > The simple question: What did I miss?
> >
> > Quite obviously I missed something, since the activities of most (if not
> > all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
> > services mentioned above.
> >
> >
>
> States exist to control resources for the benefit of members
> (citizens) of that state.
> One can't easily leave one state to go to another because that would
> diminish the per-capita resources of the destination state.
>
resources of the destination state that are increasing.- A. McIntire
(cut)
> -tg
tg
In your rush to make a political point, you were a little sloppy. Even
by the questionable reasoning of your party, the immigrant would have
to contribute more than they consume---"any valuable skills" doesn't
tell us much.
Generally, more humans are not a resource; particularly in an
equilibrium condition, there is no need for more labor, by definition.
-tg
> > -tg
AE
> ...
> Six Geo-Political Maps of the World
>
> [1] With the demise of the Soviet Union and the triumph of democracy history is
> coming to an end, an end state in which like-minded and mild-mannered democratic
> states will together construct a stable and peaceful global order.
Not likely. But I'm optimistic war as a means of politics will be
further discredited.
> [2] Since the bipolar distribution of power the East-West conflict played a
> central role in preserving peace for decades, the withdrawal of the Soviet Union
> will lead to renewed rivalry across the European Continent and the return of
> multipolarity with fault lines reemerging among its nation-states.
The Europeans are well aware of this danger which caused them to
strengthen the integrating power of EU and to integrate many nations
that were former part of the Warsaw Pact.
> [3] Different cultures hold competing views of both domestic and international
> order-and thus are destined to clash. Four blocs (Judeo-Christian, Eastern
> Orthodox, Islamic, and Confucian) will compete for dominance. The main fault
> lines of the future will emerge at the intersection of the world's major
> civilizations.
Here the European way might be the solution: We don't try to interfere
but to shape a world order that allows the different blocks to coexist.
France and Germany have a long record of coexistance with muslim
fundamentalist regimes like the one in Iran which can be seen as a prove
of concept.
> [4] The globe will be divided along socioeconomic lines with wealthy and healthy
> industrialized nations constituting one bloc, impoverished developing nations
> another and since the prosperous nations of the North will be unable to cordon
> themselves off from troubles in the South, refugees, environmental disaster, the
> transmission of epidemics, crime and corruption, and collapsing states will
> ultimately pose threats to even the most advancecd countries in the world.
There are two possibilities: Either a nation stays on the technologic
level of today's developing countries - in this case they are not a
problem that couldn't be controlled - or it is catching up - in this
case the distance between this nation and the developed countries
shrinks which solves the problem as well.
There's indeed some danger while a nation is catching up: All developed
countries had a time where loss of old values caused chaos and led to
criminality, terrorism and so on. This is a fairly short time that ends
once new values are established, but I don't see a way to avoid it.
> [5] Globalization is the dominating geopolitical feature of the new century with
> the expansion of a global market for goods, capital, and production transforming
> the world compelling all states to play by the same rules since the market will
> reward countries that liberalize their economies and democratize and treat
> harshly countries that seek to maintain centralized control of economic and
> political life, punishing their stock markets, their currencies, and their
> societies.
A free market - a market where a nation can quote their oil in euros
without being invaded, where nations don't try to stop imports from
other countries using high import duties - is surely an interesting idea.
But indeed I don't see why any of the large blocks should give up the
opportunity to regulate imports and exports.
And I'm not aware what way the citizens of a nation would profit from
this globalized market.
> [6] Two developments are pushing the world back to multipolarity and a return to
> great-power rivalry. One is the rise of Europe, which is acquiring both the
> economic and political heft necessary to challenge American leadership and its
> own political identity as a superpower. The other is the decline of American
> public support for internationalism, which makes it increasingly difficult for
> the United States to honor commitments and bear the burdens of sustaining the
> existing order. The end of U.S. primacy will usher in a more unpredictable and
> unpleasant world of competition and conflict between the traditional great
> powers.
Multipolarity is the goal of European politics, but the danger is not
multipolarity but a superpower that isn't willing to accept it's decline.
One super-power is an unpredicatble danger for the rest of the world and
forces other groups to try their luck with desperate activities like
terrorism.
Two superpowers are able to build an equilibrium, but there's the danger
of one breaking down or appearing vulnerable enough for the other to try
a direct confrontation.
From my point of view three or more blocks are the best solution: One
can't do the first step without causing a response of all other blocks.
>>...
>>The winners might to some degree be the fittest, but mostly they are the
>>ones that inherited the best starting point.
>>
>>Communism failed because liberal democracies were better for majority of
>>people, but why do you think market-state would be more acceptable than
>>the current nation-states for majority of people?
>
> Communism and pure unregulated free markets with always fail, the "mixed economy
> always wins;
> ...
As far as I can see every economy is a mixed economy - indeed even
Sovjet Union was never fully regulated.
>>...
>>I don't think anywhere else in the world the fear of weapons of mass
>>destruction in the hands of terrorists or of any other "ubiquitous
>>threats to the state" is prevalent.
>
> Come to Europe in 10 to 20 years after their federated state market takes control
> of the world and USA is playing second fiddle, the we in USA take a break and let
> them take over for a while.
I don't think Europe would go the way the US did.
The problem of the US is that they want to tell other nations about
acceptable behaviour but don't follow the rules they set themselves.
>>...
Immortalist
The author of this book, I'm only 2/3 way through...
The End of the American Era - by Charles Kupchan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158/qid=1085984236/
Claims that "democracies never war" and the "globalisation pressure" are the only
two worth considering, but he spends alot of page cutting both of them down to.
His position I summaried in 6.
He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
ready to split. EU takes over empire and America goes into middle ages kinda.
America invaded by the barbarians and lefty coasty wenchies. Actually he
chronicals the three power regions in America and shows how they flip flopped and
changed party names, man this book is cool.
Idealim, Realism, Hamilton, Jefferson, North, South, West,
[isolationism-uniporarity]
But who took over after the empire completly got wacked by the turks, of course
the western part, thats US and it forms a union with all countries in their
hemisphere, no passports and all that, common currency.
AE
> ...
> The End of the American Era - by Charles Kupchan
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158/qid=1085984236/
>
> Claims that "democracies never war" and the "globalisation pressure" are the only
> two worth considering, but he spends alot of page cutting both of them down to.
> His position I summaried in 6.
>
> He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
> ready to split.
Definitely they are on the way to split, but America never reached the
level of power of Roman Empire.
> EU takes over empire and America goes into middle ages kinda.
> America invaded by the barbarians and lefty coasty wenchies. Actually he
> chronicals the three power regions in America and shows how they flip flopped and
> changed party names, man this book is cool.
I think I'll have a look at it :-)
> Idealim, Realism, Hamilton, Jefferson, North, South, West,
> [isolationism-uniporarity]
>
> But who took over after the empire completly got wacked by the turks, of course
> the western part, thats US and it forms a union with all countries in their
> hemisphere, no passports and all that, common currency.
> ...
Well - the US are by far not all countries in their hemisphere - indeed
they are less than half of the north american continent which itself is
only small part of a hemisphere - independent of what way you are
cutting the planet.
Europe controlled most of the planet until WW I while being split in
several nations - Great Britain, Germany, France, Austro-Hungary and
Russia - balance of powers and policy of alliances stabilized and as
well to some degree paralyzed Europe.
I'd guess the great powers in the next century will be Europe, China and
a south-east asian block, Russia, the US and India. They won't reach
full strength at the same time and not all of them will reach the same
power, but they are the great players for now. Maybe an Arab alliance
could join the club.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > The End of the American Era - by Charles Kupchan
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158/qid=1085984236/
> >
> > Claims that "democracies never war" and the "globalisation pressure" are the
only
> > two worth considering, but he spends alot of page cutting both of them down
to.
> > His position I summaried in 6.
> >
> > He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
> > ready to split.
>
> Definitely they are on the way to split, but America never reached the
> level of power of Roman Empire.
>
The author presents a pretty persuasive case that the USA and Europe are similar
the the western and eastern halve of one Roman Empire currently. He didn't claim
the USA is as powerful or like the Roman Empire.
> > EU takes over empire and America goes into middle ages kinda.
> > America invaded by the barbarians and lefty coasty wenchies. Actually he
> > chronicals the three power regions in America and shows how they flip flopped
and
> > changed party names, man this book is cool.
>
> I think I'll have a look at it :-)
>
Just picked it up at the library as a fluke, couldn't stop reading it and it
probably shows in my debates on other subjects, it rocks! I think it goes along
with;
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/
The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the
Twenty-first Century
by Michael Mandelbaum
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586481347/qid=1086451705/
Those two I keep reading over and over and over again. Most books aren't like
that.
> > Idealim, Realism, Hamilton, Jefferson, North, South, West,
> > [isolationism-uniporarity]
> >
> > But who took over after the empire completly got wacked by the turks, of
course
> > the western part, thats US and it forms a union with all countries in their
> > hemisphere, no passports and all that, common currency.
> > ...
>
> Well - the US are by far not all countries in their hemisphere - indeed
> they are less than half of the north american continent which itself is
> only small part of a hemisphere - independent of what way you are
> cutting the planet.
>
> Europe controlled most of the planet until WW I while being split in
> several nations - Great Britain, Germany, France, Austro-Hungary and
> Russia - balance of powers and policy of alliances stabilized and as
> well to some degree paralyzed Europe.
>
> I'd guess the great powers in the next century will be Europe, China and
> a south-east asian block, Russia, the US and India. They won't reach
> full strength at the same time and not all of them will reach the same
> power, but they are the great players for now. Maybe an Arab alliance
> could join the club.
>
Our three blocks will continue ruling, Americas, Europe, Asia, and then Russia &
Neighbors will create a trading network and take advantage of all their iol and
be right up there with us, and in 50 years Iraq will probably created a
globalized/democratic domino effect in Arabia and it will compete marketwise with
the rest of us.
But it will be "blocks of states" not any old state that are the major players,
until we are forced into one "United States of the World" but not to make it
sound like the USA but I mean it might be a different approach to world affairs
than just the USA free trade. As the EU comes to power other elements of the
welfare state and all will be introduce on the international scene and
international labor will become a competitive institution against the WTO,
etc,...
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
>>>ready to split.
>>
>>Definitely they are on the way to split, but America never reached the
>>level of power of Roman Empire.
>
> The author presents a pretty persuasive case that the USA and Europe are similar
> the the western and eastern halve of one Roman Empire currently. He didn't claim
> the USA is as powerful or like the Roman Empire.
Nevertheless Rome's power was an important part when defining the Roman
Empire.
Another important factor is the lifetime of Roman Empire: The hegemony
of the US existed only few decades while Roman Empire lasted for centuries.
>>...
>>I'd guess the great powers in the next century will be Europe, China and
>> a south-east asian block, Russia, the US and India. They won't reach
>>full strength at the same time and not all of them will reach the same
>>power, but they are the great players for now. Maybe an Arab alliance
>>could join the club.
>
> Our three blocks will continue ruling, Americas, Europe, Asia, and then Russia &
> Neighbors will create a trading network and take advantage of all their iol and
> be right up there with us, and in 50 years Iraq will probably created a
> globalized/democratic domino effect in Arabia and it will compete marketwise with
> the rest of us.
Russia will stay in tight connection to Europe - indeed it's a part of
Europe and common history and common interests will glue them together.
As far as Iraq is concerned: If it causes a domino effect it will cause
a change of Arab wold towards fundamentalism.
> But it will be "blocks of states" not any old state that are the major players,
> until we are forced into one "United States of the World" but not to make it
> sound like the USA but I mean it might be a different approach to world affairs
> than just the USA free trade. As the EU comes to power other elements of the
> welfare state and all will be introduce on the international scene and
> international labor will become a competitive institution against the WTO,
> etc,...
Some way world will change in this direction - while the result will be
completely different to whatever we could imagine these days.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
> >>>ready to split.
> >>
> >>Definitely they are on the way to split, but America never reached the
> >>level of power of Roman Empire.
> >
> > The author presents a pretty persuasive case that the USA and Europe are
similar
> > the the western and eastern halve of one Roman Empire currently. He didn't
claim
> > the USA is as powerful or like the Roman Empire.
>
> Nevertheless Rome's power was an important part when defining the Roman
> Empire.
>
> Another important factor is the lifetime of Roman Empire: The hegemony
> of the US existed only few decades while Roman Empire lasted for centuries.
>
The author addresses these parts of the analogy. I just mentioned it in passing.
> >>...
> >>I'd guess the great powers in the next century will be Europe, China and
> >> a south-east asian block, Russia, the US and India. They won't reach
> >>full strength at the same time and not all of them will reach the same
> >>power, but they are the great players for now. Maybe an Arab alliance
> >>could join the club.
> >
> > Our three blocks will continue ruling, Americas, Europe, Asia, and then
Russia &
> > Neighbors will create a trading network and take advantage of all their iol
and
> > be right up there with us, and in 50 years Iraq will probably created a
> > globalized/democratic domino effect in Arabia and it will compete marketwise
with
> > the rest of us.
>
> Russia will stay in tight connection to Europe - indeed it's a part of
> Europe and common history and common interests will glue them together.
>
> As far as Iraq is concerned: If it causes a domino effect it will cause
> a change of Arab wold towards fundamentalism.
>
You sound pretty sure, are you a forcaster? I know the argument for more
democracy the more likely the move toward fundamentalism and the politicians who
only get elected once and turn it back to athoritarianism, but this course could
be interfered with by many factors and sustained by others. It is not certain
that less brutallity will lead to fundamentalism.
> > But it will be "blocks of states" not any old state that are the major
players,
> > until we are forced into one "United States of the World" but not to make it
> > sound like the USA but I mean it might be a different approach to world
affairs
> > than just the USA free trade. As the EU comes to power other elements of the
> > welfare state and all will be introduce on the international scene and
> > international labor will become a competitive institution against the WTO,
> > etc,...
>
> Some way world will change in this direction - while the result will be
> completely different to whatever we could imagine these days.
>
Sounds like the question I was asking you. But the author of that book has his
analogies worked out very well to indicate which way things could go.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> >>>He claims that Europe and America are like the Roman Empire was, and getting
> >>>ready to split.
> >>
> >>Definitely they are on the way to split, but America never reached the
> >>level of power of Roman Empire.
> >
> > The author presents a pretty persuasive case that the USA and Europe are
similar
> > the the western and eastern halve of one Roman Empire currently. He didn't
claim
> > the USA is as powerful or like the Roman Empire.
>
> Nevertheless Rome's power was an important part when defining the Roman
> Empire.
>
> Another important factor is the lifetime of Roman Empire: The hegemony
> of the US existed only few decades while Roman Empire lasted for centuries.
>
I found an excerpt from the book so the author can tell it better;
The parallels between today's world and the world of the late Roman Empire are
striking. Washington today, like Rome then, enjoys primacy, but is beginning to
tire of the burdens of hegemony as it witnesses the gradual diffusion of power
and influence away from the imperial core. And Europe today, like Byzantium then,
is emerging as an independent center of power, dividing a unitary realm into two.
Charles Kupchan - the author of "End of the American Era" - explains.
The United States and Europe have certainly been close partners for more than
five decades. It would be natural to conclude that they are kith and kin for
good. But consider the Roman Empire and its rapid demise after the founding of a
second capital in Constantinople.
Extending Rome's reach
By the first century AD, the borders of the Roman Empire stretched west to Spain
and the British Isles, north to Belgium and the Rhineland, south to North Africa
and Egypt, and east to the Arabian peninsula.
Rome was to control much of this territory for the next 300 years. A hub-spoke
pattern of rule provided the foundation for an imperial realm of such scope and
longevity. And Rome managed to extend its reach over the periphery through
overlapping sources of control.
Romanization
The Romans made significant improvements in roadway construction, warfare and
shipbuilding. This facilitated the flow of political influence and resources
between the imperial center and its distant limbs. They also introduced an
advanced system of governance that fostered the "Romanization" of new subjects.
Small groups of Romans were sent to live in imperial territories to help
assimilate conquered peoples and encourage them to take on a Roman identity and
way of life.
The goal was to cultivate allegiance toward, rather than resentment of, Roman
rule. Assimilation was a much cheaper and more effective way to extend control
than was coercion.
In fear of Rome
Rome was similarly thrifty in its military strategy. The well-trained legions
were kept in reserve and deployed only as needed to put down uprisings or repel
invaders. This system provided effective deterrence.
The mere prospect of facing the legions was enough to dissuade many potential
challengers from attacking. Like the United States today, Rome enjoyed
uncontested primacy and the deference that came with it.
Feeling thin
By the third century, however, Rome was beginning to feel the strain of keeping
together such a large imperial zone. The empire's frontiers could no longer be
guaranteed against contenders growing in both number and strength.
Germanic tribes threatened in the west. Persians and nomads from the Black Sea
region pressed in the east.
The frequency and intensity of barbarian attacks compelled Rome to change its
military strategy. With simultaneous threats emerging on the perimeter, the
legions had to be dispatched to the frontier.
Threats from within
Their deployment put an extraordinary strain on troop levels and imperial
coffers. Even worse, with the legions no longer held in reserve - but instead
stretched precariously thin, they could no longer deter adversaries through
intimidation.
Attacks on one part of the frontier therefore invited secondary attacks
elsewhere. The empire also began to face threats from within. Some of the larger
provinces had amassed considerable wealth and were seeking to distance themselves
from Rome.
Revamping the empire
Enter Diocletian, who became emperor in 284. He offered a bold and innovative
solution to the problem of imperial overstretch. The task of managing the empire,
Diocletian reasoned, had grown too onerous for a single ruler.
Better to divide up the realm - and devolve responsibility for its several parts
to trusted colleagues. He accordingly elevated one of his generals, Maximian, to
the rank of co-emperor.
Dividing the spoils
Diocletian and Maximian each named a junior emperor, known as a Caesar, who would
help run the empire and be in line to succeed his Augustus (supreme emperor). The
realm was then effectively divided into two halves, and each half again divided
between the Augustus and his Caesar.
Diocletian ruled the Eastern Empire with the assistance of his junior
counterpart, while Maximian and his Caesar ruled the west. Diocletian also
divided the larger, wealthier provinces into smaller units, disarming the threat
they posed to the authority of the Augusti.
Separate, but equal?
These reforms proved effective in shoring up the security of the realm and
enabling both the western and eastern portions of the empire to turn back the
barbarian threat.
Over time, Rome and Constantinople emerged as separate capitals, each seeking to
extend the influence and enhance the prestige of its court. The replacement of
one political center with two had been formalized.
The pope
The papacy in Rome and the patriarchate in Constantinople soon joined the fray.
They entered the battle over doctrinal questions - and differed as to whether
religious authorities in Constantinople were of equal status to their
counterparts in Rome.
Disputes over language and culture followed. The Western "Roman" Empire was based
on Latin culture and language - the Eastern "Byzantine" Empire, on Greek. "New
Rome" and "Old Rome" also competed over the style and grandeur of their
architecture. The Western and Eastern Empires were becoming distinct political
and cultural entities.
Things are getting worse
The order that unipolarity had provided was gone for good. True, the Roman Empire
had been already experiencing a rapid decline before Diocletian's time. In time,
it was this worsening state of affairs which had inspired his reforms.
But with authority and resources now divided between east and west, the pace of
decline quickened.
The end of Rome
The Western Empire maintained its integrity only until the death of Theodosius
the Great in 595. Thereafter, much of its territory was overrun by Germanic
tribes and other challengers.
Rome itself was sacked by Goths in 410 - and then invaded and plundered by
Vandals in 455. Twenty years later, the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus,
ended his reign and left Italy in the hands of tribal leaders.
The church - which was to have helped secure imperial unity - did just the
opposite. From the outset, church authorities in Rome and Constantinople were
adversaries. The Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Constantinople were in a
constant struggle for religious and political influence, if not predominance.
Holy Smoke
Tensions grew so acute that, in 484, the papacy and the patriarchate
excommunicated each other. Serious doctrinal differences helped intensify the
rivalry. Matters of fierce contentions concerned questions such as: Did the Holy
Ghost proceed from the Father alone - or also the Son?
Was Christ one being of divine nature -or two inseparable beings, one divine and
one human? Should busts and religious images play a central part in worship? Or
did worshiping figures, as in Judaism and Islam, constitute idolatry?
The end of modern unipolarity?
When mingled with personal animosities, these doctrinal disputes were to mire
both churches in centuries of competition and intrigue - including murders,
kidnappings and lesser forms of abuse. The church nonetheless stayed nominally
unified until 1054, when it formally broke into its Roman Catholic and Greek
Orthodox variants.
All in all, Rome's fate does not augur well for the current wave of transatlantic
infighting. Simply put, the process of Rome's decline foreshadows a unitary West
that is in the midst of separating into distinct North American and European
power centers.
Excerpted from THE END OF THE AMERICAN ERA by Charles A. Kupchan Copyright (c)
Charles A. Kupchan With permission from the publisher Alfred A. Knopf, a division
of Random House, Inc.
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3851
-----------------------------
According to Kupchan, America's unipolar moment will not last. Europe will rise
as a single market, a single currency and a self-confident voice. The waning of
U.S. primacy will result from an America that is tiring of the burdens of global
hegemony. "Americans [.] are justifiably losing interest in playing the role of
global guardian." The U.S. is drawing away from multilateral institutions in
favor of a unilateralism that risks estranging alternative centers of power.
Isolationism and unilateralism are making a comeback. They are opposite sides of
the same coin: They share common ideological origins in America's fear of
entanglements that may compromise its liberty and sovereignty.
Unipolarity is here, but it will not last long. No dominant country has ever been
able to sustain primacy indefinitely. Over time, other states catch up. The
European Union is the near-term challenger to America. The collective wealth of
Britain, France, or Germany constitutes an economic behemoth on the horizon. As
the EU's resources grow, it will want a voice commensurate with its new station.
Whether or not the United States likes it, "Europe is becoming a new center of
global power. America's sway will shrink accordingly."
Kupchan asserts that the EU has begun to flex its diplomatic muscle in
unprecedented fashion. Europe is acquiring greater geopolitical ambition. The
Cold War is over, Europe's nations are at peace, and the EU is thriving. The
shift in the strategic relationship between North America and Europe is in its
early stages. It will gain momentum in the next few years. Europe is emerging as
America's only major competitor.
http://www.friederich-mielke.de/kupchan.html
--------------------------------
KUPCHAN: I think the split between the Clinton team and the Bush team goes way
back in American history to an early split between Alexander Hamilton and
Jefferson on realism versus idealism. And as you said, the Clinton people cared
about idealism. They had a new security agenda, backed humanitarian intervention,
globalization, the Internet revolution.
The Bush people are more traditional realists. They're going to focus on the meat
and potato issues of great powers, alliances, the strength of the American
military. And in that sense, I think they're going to have a foreign policy that
is, to some extent, a throwback to an earlier age. And we sill see less attention
to some of those new age issues that Gore liked to talk about when he was a
candidate for president.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/19/i_ins.00.html
---------------------------------
http://www.policyreview.org/apr04/oudenaren.html
http://www.glocomnet.or.jp/okazaki-inst/kupchan.round.html
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>> ...
>>>Russia & Neighbors will create a trading network and take advantage of
>>>all their iol and be right up there with us, and in 50 years Iraq will
>>>probably created a globalized/democratic domino effect in Arabia and
>>>it will compete marketwise with the rest of us.
>>
>>Russia will stay in tight connection to Europe - indeed it's a part of
>>Europe and common history and common interests will glue them together.
>>
>>As far as Iraq is concerned: If it causes a domino effect it will cause
>>a change of Arab wold towards fundamentalism.
>
> You sound pretty sure, are you a forcaster? I know the argument for more
> democracy the more likely the move toward fundamentalism and the politicians who
> only get elected once and turn it back to athoritarianism, but this course could
> be interfered with by many factors and sustained by others. It is not certain
> that less brutallity will lead to fundamentalism.
I don't think one has to be a clairvoyant to see what is going on:
The US stated shortly after the invasion of Iraq that whatever happens
they wouldn't allow a theocracy to come to power in Iraq - this is as
much as the people of Iraq won't be free to chose their way if this
conflicts with the ideas of the US.
To make things even worse they did quite a bit to get as much of Iraq as
possible under control of US companies - and as far as I can see interim
government won't be able to change any of the contracts made by the
occupying forces.
Finally the US showed Iraq and - maybe more important - all the Arab
world loud and clear what human rights mean to the liberators.
The most widely accepted politicians in Iraq are religious leaders -
what development would you expect under these conditions?
If any nation would be able to start a democratic domino-effect within
the next 50 years this would be Iran.
During the last decade democracy was growing stronger and stronger in
Iran. What keeps fundamentalists in Iran in power are things like
calling Iran part of an axis of evil, invading their neighbours and
causing political and economic pressure.
>>>But it will be "blocks of states" not any old state that are the major players,
>>>until we are forced into one "United States of the World" but not to make it
>>>sound like the USA but I mean it might be a different approach to world affairs
>>>than just the USA free trade. As the EU comes to power other elements of the
>>>welfare state and all will be introduce on the international scene and
>>>international labor will become a competitive institution against the WTO,
>>>etc,...
>>
>>Some way world will change in this direction - while the result will be
>>completely different to whatever we could imagine these days.
>
> Sounds like the question I was asking you. But the author of that book has his
> analogies worked out very well to indicate which way things could go.
What I do expect are blocks of states that are more and more molding
together - the EU being the first, the south-east asian block the next
and maybe some day Arab world will follow. I'm not quite sure abotu the
role of Russia, but anyway bounds between Russia and Europe will get
stronger.
As well I'm not sure about the development in Africa and in South
America - how long will they stay in post-colonial state?
Quite obviously the US and Canada already are a block. Not sure what
happens to the current block consisting of US, Canada, Australia and
Great Britain - mabye GB will really become European one day, but till
now it's policy is American, not European.
Maybe more important than politics is economy. Here the big players
might dissolve the borders between the different blocks more quickly
than politics can do, but it's hard to predict what way social systems
will go - surely it will be a mixture of the European and the American
one with influences from China and Japan and maybe we'll learn a lot
from the Arab world, Africa and South America once they have closed up.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>the the western and eastern halve of one Roman Empire currently. He didn't claim
>>>the USA is as powerful or like the Roman Empire.
>>
>>Nevertheless Rome's power was an important part when defining the Roman
>>Empire.
>>
>>Another important factor is the lifetime of Roman Empire: The hegemony
>>of the US existed only few decades while Roman Empire lasted for centuries.
>
> I found an excerpt from the book so the author can tell it better;
>
> The parallels between today's world and the world of the late Roman Empire are
> striking. Washington today, like Rome then, enjoys primacy, but is beginning to
> tire of the burdens of hegemony as it witnesses the gradual diffusion of power
> and influence away from the imperial core. And Europe today, like Byzantium then,
> is emerging as an independent center of power, dividing a unitary realm into two.
> Charles Kupchan - the author of "End of the American Era" - explains.
The difference is that Rome had the military power to create and hold
the empire and that it was indeed the ruler of the whole empire.
The US never went beyond creating alliances. Their military power is
impressive but by far not strong enough to hold a worldwide empire.
They invaded two almost defenceless nations and are showing their
unability to hold them. Afghanistan is mostly back in the hands of
Taliban and already parts of Iraq are controlled by Shia militia.
American hegemony existed solely due to an outer enemy - the Sowjet
Union, but once this one was gone there's no reason for other nations to
stay within the alliance.
War agianst terror was a trial to shape a new outer enemy, but this
didn't work.
> The United States and Europe have certainly been close partners for more than
> five decades. It would be natural to conclude that they are kith and kin for
> good. But consider the Roman Empire and its rapid demise after the founding of a
> second capital in Constantinople.
Constantinople was new, but Europe is much older than the US.
It was divided and that way could be controlled by the superpowers, but
now it's on the way to it's old strength.
On the other hand Europe won't try US-style imperialism - multipolarity
can as well be seen as balance of powers with more than two players.
> ...
Immortalist
These things could happen but not necessarily so.
> If any nation would be able to start a democratic domino-effect within
> the next 50 years this would be Iran.
> During the last decade democracy was growing stronger and stronger in
> Iran. What keeps fundamentalists in Iran in power are things like
> calling Iran part of an axis of evil, invading their neighbours and
> causing political and economic pressure.
>
Agreed, camparatively this or that nation could democratize faster or slower than
Iraq but that still doesn't necessarily mean Iraq would go Theocratic, even if no
body did nothing. But the commitment is to interfere if things go theocratic and
then pull back over and over.
http://www.politicaltoons.com/flash/humor_axis.cfm
This kinda thing goes on till we discover unlimited and free energy right?
Immortalist
Maybe the difference was that you still don't see the authors point of using the
anaology? The change from Unipolarity to Multipolarity and its consequences.
He waxes greatly on the Unification of Germany at the end of the 19th century as
another excellent model for other comparisons. He goes to great links to show the
switch of N and S USA's connection to philosophies of British Industral
Corporatism and French agriculturalst lifeways and the turn around as models
applicable to current day situations.
To try and take that author litteraly misses much, but what a great "big picture"
book it is. But really I can't say yet because I havn't finished it all the way.
AE
> This kinda thing goes on till we discover unlimited and free energy right?
Energy is the limiting factor right now, but unlimited energy would just
shift things. There are limited surface, limited water, limited heavy
elements, limited volatile elements, limited cooling capacity (which
becomes important onde energy is unlimited and free) and so on.
I don't think it ever ends. To go to the extreme: There is a limited
volume reachable with speed of light in a given time, containing a
limited mass and energy. The same is true for our galaxy, galactic
cluster, galactic supercluster and universe.
Limits all around and all are enforcing competition.
Immortalist
But if we could create any atoms we needed, by fission and fusion, and we could
create any molecular combination of these atoms, couldn't we use any wasted to
make any currently scarce resource. And couldn't we employ some of this matter to
send heat out of the planetary atmosphere and then get back the junk atoms for
further tranmutations?
If we can turn any matter into any matter and we need more matter we have lots of
matter around this solar system.
AE
> ...
> Maybe the difference was that you still don't see the authors point of using the
> anaology? The change from Unipolarity to Multipolarity and its consequences.
Maybe I just didn't make my point clear:
Unipolarity is just a transition as far as the US are concerned.
Roman Empire was mostly unipolar - indeed it needed the external enemy
as well for the sake of inner stabilisation, but for centuries this
external enemy wasn't really a danger for the Empire.
On the other hand the US never had the capacity to shape and control an
empire like that - their allies joined the club only because of an outer
enemy and once the Sowjet Union disappeared the American Empire was doomed.
So indeed we've got a change from a bipolar to a multipolar system.
The other point where I beg to differ is what is going to happen:
You seem to believe the new system would be less stable.
But indeed the stable system was bipolar and the current one is instable.
Multipolar systems can be extremely strong - above all if one or more of
the powers are interested in balance.
> ...
Immortalist
Seems right I suppose because before WWI in a multi-polar world warfare was about
the same frequency as modern bipolarity and multipolarity. If I sounded like it
was going to get better or worse, sorry about that, I havn't decided yet, I was
probably talking about the author's view. It seems that warfare is near
impossible and all there is left to do is slap around some gangs like alkiada.
What country would be stupid enough to get in a war? Maybe some are still warring
but who would be stupid enough to ruin their own economy by starting a war?
> > ...
>
AE
> ...
> But if we could create any atoms we needed, by fission and fusion, and we could
> create any molecular combination of these atoms, couldn't we use any wasted to
> make any currently scarce resource.
While this is nothing in range of our physical theories it would
nevertheless reduce the problem.
Of course fission and fusion are requiring or producing energy -
depending on what one is doing:
Every process getting you closer to lead produces energy, every process
bringing you away from lead requires energy. At least in theory. In
reality most processes are requiring more energy than they are producing.
The main problem of a system working that way is the energy that is
produced.
> And couldn't we employ some of this matter to
> send heat out of the planetary atmosphere and then get back the junk atoms for
> further tranmutations?
Not really - second fundamental theorem of thermodynamics keeps you from
doing so: You can't get unordered energy back into the ordered state.
Entropy in a closed system always grows. Reducing entropy means adding
energy from outside.
> If we can turn any matter into any matter and we need more matter we have lots of
> matter around this solar system.
Lots of matter, nevertheless a limited amount.
Imagine a dyson sphere: Build a sphere of 100 million miles radius with
our sun in the center. That way it's inner surface would be in the same
distance of sun earth is today.
You'll get 5 billion times the surface of earth.
How long does mankind need today to double? 50 years?
Let's use 50 years - it doesn't matter how fast exactly.
Let's start with the moment when earth is completely filled with people
- whatever this means.
About 1600 years later the dyson sphere is full.
Now do the same with every star in our galaxy. You are winning less than
2000 years.
For all stars in our universe: Only 2000 years more.
AE
> ...
> What country would be stupid enough to get in a war? Maybe some are still warring
> but who would be stupid enough to ruin their own economy by starting a war?
The US?
Main problem of the USA is the combination of foreign deficit and budget
deficit.
In this situation they are occupying Iraq and spending billions per
month for occupation forces and in addition increasing their defense
spendings.
Sounds suicidal to me.
Bill Stender
> From my point of view a nation is a group of people following a
> contract necessary to set rules and provide services that can't be set
> or provided by a group following the rules of the market - a plain
> anarchy quickly would develop to a completely unsocial market-economy.
>
> The simple question: What did I miss?
>
> Quite obviously I missed something, since the activities of most (if not
> all) nations are far beyond what would be necessary to provide the
> services mentioned above.
>
You need to define which "additional activities" you are considering
superfluous. For instance the activities designed to make the world
safe for corporate profit-taking makes up a large body of activities
that some would call unnecessary but which has always been part of the
agenda of the US and other governments...possibly their _primary_
agenda item. And governments in general the world over are formed by
the propertied in order to manage their affairs, the details of which
again are numerous and necessary. what exactly is uneccessary?
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > But if we could create any atoms we needed, by fission and fusion, and we
could
> > create any molecular combination of these atoms, couldn't we use any wasted
to
> > make any currently scarce resource.
>
> While this is nothing in range of our physical theories it would
> nevertheless reduce the problem.
>
> Of course fission and fusion are requiring or producing energy -
> depending on what one is doing:
>
> Every process getting you closer to lead produces energy, every process
> bringing you away from lead requires energy. At least in theory. In
> reality most processes are requiring more energy than they are producing.
>
> The main problem of a system working that way is the energy that is
> produced.
>
Energy is a problem? I thought thats what we were trying to get.
> > And couldn't we employ some of this matter to
> > send heat out of the planetary atmosphere and then get back the junk atoms
for
> > further tranmutations?
>
> Not really - second fundamental theorem of thermodynamics keeps you from
> doing so: You can't get unordered energy back into the ordered state.
> Entropy in a closed system always grows. Reducing entropy means adding
> energy from outside.
>
Put mirrors in front of the sun out in space then. That will take care of your
heat.
> > If we can turn any matter into any matter and we need more matter we have
lots of
> > matter around this solar system.
>
> Lots of matter, nevertheless a limited amount.
>
All the matter in our solar system isn't enough? Enough to do what?
> Imagine a dyson sphere: Build a sphere of 100 million miles radius with
> our sun in the center. That way it's inner surface would be in the same
> distance of sun earth is today.
>
> You'll get 5 billion times the surface of earth.
>
> How long does mankind need today to double? 50 years?
>
> Let's use 50 years - it doesn't matter how fast exactly.
>
> Let's start with the moment when earth is completely filled with people
> - whatever this means.
>
> About 1600 years later the dyson sphere is full.
>
> Now do the same with every star in our galaxy. You are winning less than
> 2000 years.
>
> For all stars in our universe: Only 2000 years more.
>
Well this same reasoning applys to micro-organisms on this planet now. They could
flank and destroy everything in days if they could all continue dividing.
But you are claiming that humans will not control their reproduction rate? How
would you show that?
Tippler
http://tinyurl.com/2b3j8
Bernal
http://tinyurl.com/3yquf
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > What country would be stupid enough to get in a war? Maybe some are still
warring
> > but who would be stupid enough to ruin their own economy by starting a war?
>
> The US?
>
Duh. I knew that the US went to war with Iraq. I was speaking generally, as time
goes on it will be suicidal for any country to go to war with any other. As
absurd as imagining Britain going to war with France right now.
> Main problem of the USA is the combination of foreign deficit and budget
> deficit.
>
> In this situation they are occupying Iraq and spending billions per
> month for occupation forces and in addition increasing their defense
> spendings.
>
Good thing W. brought that 90s Iraq bullshit to a conclusion, we didn't like the
overflight crap that went on for all those years. We will get out of there as
soon as we can to save a buck.
> Sounds suicidal to me.
>
Good way to replace older ordinance. We Americans look forwards to turning these
responsibilities to the Europeans. We are saving money big time all over pulling
out troops. In Europe they are crying as we go and when we tell them that they
are getting good enough to defend themselves now.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>But if we could create any atoms we needed, by fission and fusion, and we could
>>>create any molecular combination of these atoms, couldn't we use any wasted to
>>>make any currently scarce resource.
>>
>>While this is nothing in range of our physical theories it would
>>nevertheless reduce the problem.
>>
>>Of course fission and fusion are requiring or producing energy -
>>depending on what one is doing:
>>
>>Every process getting you closer to lead produces energy, every process
>>bringing you away from lead requires energy. At least in theory. In
>>reality most processes are requiring more energy than they are producing.
>>
>>The main problem of a system working that way is the energy that is
>>produced.
>
> Energy is a problem? I thought thats what we were trying to get.
What we are trying to get is energy we are able to use.
The amount of energy being absorbed when creating atoms is small
compared to the energy being spent - that's true at least for almost all
processes known today and it's not only true for nucleosynthesis but as
well for most chemical processes and even for the processes within an
organism.
So almost all energy you are spending gets transformed to heat.
To some degree you can use heat to produce electricity, but that's as
well only a small fraction and even this energy will sooner or later be
transformed to heat - for example when being used in a motor.
In the end the result is always the same: Whatever energy you are
producing adds to the heat in your system.
Conversion of any form of matter to any other form of matter reduces the
problem of production of raw material and some yet unknown system to
produce unlimited energy removes the problem of power supply, but what
way would one get rid of all the waste energy produced?
>>>And couldn't we employ some of this matter to
>>>send heat out of the planetary atmosphere and then get back the junk atoms for
>>>further tranmutations?
>>
>>Not really - second fundamental theorem of thermodynamics keeps you from
>>doing so: You can't get unordered energy back into the ordered state.
>>Entropy in a closed system always grows. Reducing entropy means adding
>>energy from outside.
>
> Put mirrors in front of the sun out in space then. That will take care of your
> heat.
This takes care of the energy coming from sun. On the other hand it adds
to the energy production necessary on earth since you need the light to
grow plants.
The main problem is the energy produced on earth - unlimited energy
means as well unlimited waste energy.
>>>If we can turn any matter into any matter and we need more matter we have lots of
>>>matter around this solar system.
>>
>>Lots of matter, nevertheless a limited amount.
>
> All the matter in our solar system isn't enough? Enough to do what?
I don't think the matter outside sun would be enough to build a dyson
sphere.
It's not enough to build an Einstein-Rosen-bridge large enough for
transport.
Independent of special purposes: It is limited.
>>Imagine a dyson sphere: Build a sphere of 100 million miles radius with
>>our sun in the center. That way it's inner surface would be in the same
>>distance of sun earth is today.
>>
>>You'll get 5 billion times the surface of earth.
>>
>>How long does mankind need today to double? 50 years?
>>
>>Let's use 50 years - it doesn't matter how fast exactly.
>>
>>Let's start with the moment when earth is completely filled with people
>>- whatever this means.
>>
>>About 1600 years later the dyson sphere is full.
>>
>>Now do the same with every star in our galaxy. You are winning less than
>>2000 years.
>>
>>For all stars in our universe: Only 2000 years more.
>
> Well this same reasoning applys to micro-organisms on this planet now. They could
> flank and destroy everything in days if they could all continue dividing.
>
> But you are claiming that humans will not control their reproduction rate? How
> would you show that?
I don't show that. Indeed I would expect humans to reduce their plain
reproduction rate dramatically within this century.
But reduciton of reproduction rate doesn't mean eliminating population
growth:
On the one hand growing life expectancy might compensate reduced
reproduction rate.
On the other hand let's imagine population growth would be reduced to 1%
of the current one. In that case a dsyon sphere would be filled within
160000 years, galaxy within 360000 years and universe within 560000 years.
Of course these numbers are not realistic since there's no way for
people to spread that fast.
But this only increases the problem: Maximum population is not limited
by the number of stars existing but by the number of stars in range
which is at most as large but most likely much smaller (for example when
travelling with less than speed of light).
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>What country would be stupid enough to get in a war? Maybe some are still warring
>>>but who would be stupid enough to ruin their own economy by starting a war?
>>
>>The US?
>
> Duh. I knew that the US went to war with Iraq. I was speaking generally, as time
> goes on it will be suicidal for any country to go to war with any other. As
> absurd as imagining Britain going to war with France right now.
Of course it would be even more stupid to go to war with a nation that
is able to defend, but this doesn't change the effect on economy.
>>Main problem of the USA is the combination of foreign deficit and budget
>>deficit.
>>
>>In this situation they are occupying Iraq and spending billions per
>>month for occupation forces and in addition increasing their defense
>>spendings.
>
> Good thing W. brought that 90s Iraq bullshit to a conclusion, we didn't like the
> overflight crap that went on for all those years. We will get out of there as
> soon as we can to save a buck.
Will take quite a while to reach a plus after spending - how much is it
till now? I think something between 100 and 200 billion dollars. And
right now the US are still spending more money for Iraq than during the 90s.
Independent of Iraq the US are spending more than 300 billion dollar
this year for their defense system - to defend against whom? Nobody knows.
>>Sounds suicidal to me.
>
> Good way to replace older ordinance.
Yes - that way the US got rid of parts of their stockpile of napalm and
cluster bombs.
But main costs come from support for the soldiers and money flowing from
public funds to companies like Halliburton - companies that are either
not productive themselves (sounds similar to Enron, right?) or that
produce outside the US to reduce spendings for taxes and pays.
> We Americans look forwards to turning these responsibilities to the Europeans.
I'm already curious: Germany already declared they won't send troops to
Iraq and as far as I can see France won't either.
What's left?
Italy and Poland? Not likely they'd be able to replace the US, right?
> We are saving money big time all over pulling out troops.
Once you start pulling out troops - what I don't see happening.
Not from Iraq, beacuse this would make the whole situation even less
controlled, and not from Europe where troops are only shifted further
eastwards.
> In Europe they are crying as we go and when we tell them that they
> are getting good enough to defend themselves now.
We are by far good enough to defend ourselves. Germany is still reducing
troops to get down to the level appropriate for current situation (end
of cold war). This might be an extreme example since Germany represents
the largest conventional firepower within Europe and the highest density
of conventional firepower on the whole planet, but indeed situation is
similar in other European nations.
The reason why some people are crying is the fact many US citizens are
leaving that spent their pay here in Europe.
As far as I am concerned: I'll party as soon as the last US soldier has
left our country.
Immortalist
Right next to our atmosphere is some pretty cold space. Have you eliminated all
way we might transfere heat out there like in light how the sun does or other
ways.
> >>>And couldn't we employ some of this matter to
> >>>send heat out of the planetary atmosphere and then get back the junk atoms
for
> >>>further tranmutations?
> >>
> >>Not really - second fundamental theorem of thermodynamics keeps you from
> >>doing so: You can't get unordered energy back into the ordered state.
> >>Entropy in a closed system always grows. Reducing entropy means adding
> >>energy from outside.
> >
> > Put mirrors in front of the sun out in space then. That will take care of
your
> > heat.
>
> This takes care of the energy coming from sun. On the other hand it adds
> to the energy production necessary on earth since you need the light to
> grow plants.
>
> The main problem is the energy produced on earth - unlimited energy
> means as well unlimited waste energy.
>
Unlimited energy means we only use as much as we need though and then dump the
reset in space. I would rather have a bunch of continually replacable energy to
get rid of than a limited supply of energy like oil.
> >>>If we can turn any matter into any matter and we need more matter we have
lots of
> >>>matter around this solar system.
> >>
> >>Lots of matter, nevertheless a limited amount.
> >
> > All the matter in our solar system isn't enough? Enough to do what?
>
> I don't think the matter outside sun would be enough to build a dyson
> sphere.
>
> It's not enough to build an Einstein-Rosen-bridge large enough for
> transport.
>
> Independent of special purposes: It is limited.
>
Who needs all those things when we have all the real estate available in our
solar system?
Besides if we did want to build those things we won't have to use 21st century
science in the future.
Population rate doesn't have to grow necessarily but you are assuming that it
must.
Sometimes when we open up a particular planet for millions of people we might
want to breed a little more and have a sexual revolution and then when the
numbers begin to "hurt" it will be easy to promote negative growth. Seems you are
supposing a perpetual third world or developing poor nation or something, but
with unlimited energy everybody's got what they need.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>What country would be stupid enough to get in a war? Maybe some are still
warring
> >>>but who would be stupid enough to ruin their own economy by starting a war?
> >>
> >>The US?
> >
> > Duh. I knew that the US went to war with Iraq. I was speaking generally, as
time
> > goes on it will be suicidal for any country to go to war with any other. As
> > absurd as imagining Britain going to war with France right now.
>
> Of course it would be even more stupid to go to war with a nation that
> is able to defend, but this doesn't change the effect on economy.
>
Crying over spilt milk? Not much to do about it now.
> >>Main problem of the USA is the combination of foreign deficit and budget
> >>deficit.
> >>
> >>In this situation they are occupying Iraq and spending billions per
> >>month for occupation forces and in addition increasing their defense
> >>spendings.
> >
> > Good thing W. brought that 90s Iraq bullshit to a conclusion, we didn't like
the
> > overflight crap that went on for all those years. We will get out of there as
> > soon as we can to save a buck.
>
> Will take quite a while to reach a plus after spending - how much is it
> till now? I think something between 100 and 200 billion dollars. And
> right now the US are still spending more money for Iraq than during the 90s.
>
> Independent of Iraq the US are spending more than 300 billion dollar
> this year for their defense system - to defend against whom? Nobody knows.
>
So you are arguing for reducing military spending or are you arguing for
eliminating the military?
> >>Sounds suicidal to me.
> >
> > Good way to replace older ordinance.
>
> Yes - that way the US got rid of parts of their stockpile of napalm and
> cluster bombs.
>
> But main costs come from support for the soldiers and money flowing from
> public funds to companies like Halliburton - companies that are either
> not productive themselves (sounds similar to Enron, right?) or that
> produce outside the US to reduce spendings for taxes and pays.
>
Are you saying we should regulate these more than we already do or are you saying
to eliminate all such activities?
> > We Americans look forwards to turning these responsibilities to the
Europeans.
>
> I'm already curious: Germany already declared they won't send troops to
> Iraq and as far as I can see France won't either.
>
> What's left?
>
After the turn over of power and a year or two goes by, the UN may take over the
entire operation. All they gotta do is keep proposing stuff and they will hit on
the policy that the world likes.
> Italy and Poland? Not likely they'd be able to replace the US, right?
>
Iraq's own military and police force will replace us.
> > We are saving money big time all over pulling out troops.
>
> Once you start pulling out troops - what I don't see happening.
>
I'm not think 10 years nor am I thinking a couple of months either. When Iraq
grows their own stuff we begin to pull out all the way.
> Not from Iraq, beacuse this would make the whole situation even less
> controlled, and not from Europe where troops are only shifted further
> eastwards.
>
As long as we can blast back in if it turns theocratic they can be on their own
once they gain the ability to control their own society.
> > In Europe they are crying as we go and when we tell them that they
> > are getting good enough to defend themselves now.
>
> We are by far good enough to defend ourselves. Germany is still reducing
> troops to get down to the level appropriate for current situation (end
> of cold war). This might be an extreme example since Germany represents
> the largest conventional firepower within Europe and the highest density
> of conventional firepower on the whole planet, but indeed situation is
> similar in other European nations.
>
> The reason why some people are crying is the fact many US citizens are
> leaving that spent their pay here in Europe.
>
> As far as I am concerned: I'll party as soon as the last US soldier has
> left our country.
>
I don't know what country your talking about but it takes time for the world to
change.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>In the end the result is always the same: Whatever energy you are
>>producing adds to the heat in your system.
>>
>>Conversion of any form of matter to any other form of matter reduces the
>>problem of production of raw material and some yet unknown system to
>>produce unlimited energy removes the problem of power supply, but what
>>way would one get rid of all the waste energy produced?
>
> Right next to our atmosphere is some pretty cold space. Have you eliminated all
> way we might transfere heat out there like in light how the sun does or other
> ways.
Space is neither hot nor cold. Indeed the vacuum of space has an effect
similar to the vacuum in a thermos flask: Insulation.
The only way to send heat energy into space is thermal radiation, but
this has an upper limit given by temperature and surface.
>>...
>>This takes care of the energy coming from sun. On the other hand it adds
>>to the energy production necessary on earth since you need the light to
>>grow plants.
>>
>>The main problem is the energy produced on earth - unlimited energy
>>means as well unlimited waste energy.
>
> Unlimited energy means we only use as much as we need though and then dump the
> reset in space.
Whatever "as much as we need" exactly means. Till now energy consumption
is growning and I don't see this process stopping.
> I would rather have a bunch of continually replacable energy to
> get rid of than a limited supply of energy like oil.
True.
>>...
>>I don't think the matter outside sun would be enough to build a dyson
>>sphere.
>>
>>It's not enough to build an Einstein-Rosen-bridge large enough for
>>transport.
>>
>>Independent of special purposes: It is limited.
>
> Who needs all those things when we have all the real estate available in our
> solar system?
My point is simply that it is limited.
Mankind tends to expand by population growth or growth of consumption
per head of energy and raw material.
That's part of human nature, so it won't ever stop.
As a result all ressources, independent how large they are, will be used
up sooner or later.
A new frontier reduces the pressure for a while, but never permanently.
> Besides if we did want to build those things we won't have to use 21st century
> science in the future.
That's not a question of technology, but indeed of the nature of our
universe.
>>...
>>But reduciton of reproduction rate doesn't mean eliminating population
>>growth:
>>On the one hand growing life expectancy might compensate reduced
>>reproduction rate.
>>On the other hand let's imagine population growth would be reduced to 1%
>>of the current one. In that case a dsyon sphere would be filled within
>>160000 years, galaxy within 360000 years and universe within 560000 years.
>>
>>Of course these numbers are not realistic since there's no way for
>>people to spread that fast.
>>But this only increases the problem: Maximum population is not limited
>>by the number of stars existing but by the number of stars in range
>>which is at most as large but most likely much smaller (for example when
>>travelling with less than speed of light).
>
> Population rate doesn't have to grow necessarily but you are assuming that it
> must.
Not that it must, but that it is likely to do. Population was growing
during the history. Why should it stop?
> Sometimes when we open up a particular planet for millions of people we might
> want to breed a little more and have a sexual revolution and then when the
> numbers begin to "hurt" it will be easy to promote negative growth. Seems you are
> supposing a perpetual third world or developing poor nation or something, but
> with unlimited energy everybody's got what they need.
There are two possible ways population growth could stop:
1) Something happening to the behaviour or biologic properties of
mankind. This would cause something similar to the population deficit we
are observing in industrialized nations.
It's not likely this would cause precisely stagnation. Instead it will
either only slow down population growth (an effect I took into
consideration) or it will cause a permanent reduction of population
which would long term cause extinction of mankind (a possibility that
doesn't add anything to our discussion).
If these effects are constand long-term they are either leading to
unlimited growth or to extinction. If not the more frequent effect prevails.
2) Reduction of population growth due to limited ressources. Then we are
once again in the situation where we are right now.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>this year for their defense system - to defend against whom? Nobody knows.
>
> So you are arguing for reducing military spending or are you arguing for
> eliminating the military?
I'm arguing for reducing military spending.
>>...
>>But main costs come from support for the soldiers and money flowing from
>>public funds to companies like Halliburton - companies that are either
>>not productive themselves (sounds similar to Enron, right?) or that
>>produce outside the US to reduce spendings for taxes and pays.
>
> Are you saying we should regulate these more than we already do or are you saying
> to eliminate all such activities?
First of all you need by far better regulation.
Companies close to leading politicians got contracts without open
competition bidding.
Second the support of companies against the interests of the nation has
completely to be eliminated: Bush's tax policy rewards companies that
place their production outside the US which increases their profit but
harms the US by destroying jobs.
Independent of that it's questionable whether all activities of the US
in other countries are profitable. They might add some control but as
well strengthen Antiamericanism.
>> ...
>>I'm already curious: Germany already declared they won't send troops to
>>Iraq and as far as I can see France won't either.
>>
>>What's left?
>
> After the turn over of power and a year or two goes by, the UN may take over the
> entire operation. All they gotta do is keep proposing stuff and they will hit on
> the policy that the world likes.
UN wouldn't fight a theocracy.
The problem the US are facing is that they invaded Iraq to controll it's
policy, but handing power over to UN would remove this control.
The solution the US are trying is to hand control to NATO which is more
or less controlled by the US, but this means the job will be done by the US.
>>Italy and Poland? Not likely they'd be able to replace the US, right?
>
> Iraq's own military and police force will replace us.
So not Europe? Interesting.
>>...
>>Once you start pulling out troops - what I don't see happening.
>
> I'm not think 10 years nor am I thinking a couple of months either. When Iraq
> grows their own stuff we begin to pull out all the way.
As far as I can see the US will try to stay in Iraq for a much longer
time. Not doing so will render the whole invasion useless.
>>Not from Iraq, beacuse this would make the whole situation even less
>>controlled, and not from Europe where troops are only shifted further
>>eastwards.
>
> As long as we can blast back in if it turns theocratic they can be on their own
> once they gain the ability to control their own society.
Yes - of course this would mean to break international law once again
and to remove the rest of support the US has in the world.
This will be the final split between the US and Europe.
>>...
>>The reason why some people are crying is the fact many US citizens are
>>leaving that spent their pay here in Europe.
>>
>>As far as I am concerned: I'll party as soon as the last US soldier has
>>left our country.
>
> I don't know what country your talking about but it takes time for the world to
> change.
I'm living in Germany.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>In the end the result is always the same: Whatever energy you are
> >>producing adds to the heat in your system.
> >>
> >>Conversion of any form of matter to any other form of matter reduces the
> >>problem of production of raw material and some yet unknown system to
> >>produce unlimited energy removes the problem of power supply, but what
> >>way would one get rid of all the waste energy produced?
> >
> > Right next to our atmosphere is some pretty cold space. Have you eliminated
all
> > way we might transfere heat out there like in light how the sun does or other
> > ways.
>
> Space is neither hot nor cold. Indeed the vacuum of space has an effect
> similar to the vacuum in a thermos flask: Insulation.
>
But heat is radiation man, when an object like the Earth sets in space, it
radiates it's heat out in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
> The only way to send heat energy into space is thermal radiation, but
> this has an upper limit given by temperature and surface.
>
so we work within area limitations and get rid of all the energy we need to?
> >>...
> >>This takes care of the energy coming from sun. On the other hand it adds
> >>to the energy production necessary on earth since you need the light to
> >>grow plants.
> >>
> >>The main problem is the energy produced on earth - unlimited energy
> >>means as well unlimited waste energy.
> >
> > Unlimited energy means we only use as much as we need though and then dump
the
> > reset in space.
>
> Whatever "as much as we need" exactly means. Till now energy consumption
> is growning and I don't see this process stopping.
>
But you havn't shown why the curve or relationship between recycling and
radiating out of energy might change also.
Like you cannot show that population growth necessarily continue how could you
show that energy growth is necessary. Many uses of energy have decreased with
more efficiency resulting, like from vacuum tubes to transistors.
> > I would rather have a bunch of continually replacable energy to
> > get rid of than a limited supply of energy like oil.
>
> True.
>
> >>...
> >>I don't think the matter outside sun would be enough to build a dyson
> >>sphere.
> >>
> >>It's not enough to build an Einstein-Rosen-bridge large enough for
> >>transport.
> >>
> >>Independent of special purposes: It is limited.
> >
> > Who needs all those things when we have all the real estate available in our
> > solar system?
>
> My point is simply that it is limited.
>
> Mankind tends to expand by population growth or growth of consumption
> per head of energy and raw material.
>
> That's part of human nature, so it won't ever stop.
>
You have not shown why population will necessarily increase even if you show that
humans have an instinctual bias to reproduce. They also have an instinctual bias
to restrict behavior and emotion with their frontal lobes and cingulate gyri.
> As a result all ressources, independent how large they are, will be used
> up sooner or later.
>
do the atoms disappear?
> A new frontier reduces the pressure for a while, but never permanently.
>
enough atoms to live till proton decay
> > Besides if we did want to build those things we won't have to use 21st
century
> > science in the future.
>
> That's not a question of technology, but indeed of the nature of our
> universe.
>
are you saying our technology is up to the nature of our universe and can advance
no further?
> >>...
> >>But reduciton of reproduction rate doesn't mean eliminating population
> >>growth:
> >>On the one hand growing life expectancy might compensate reduced
> >>reproduction rate.
> >>On the other hand let's imagine population growth would be reduced to 1%
> >>of the current one. In that case a dsyon sphere would be filled within
> >>160000 years, galaxy within 360000 years and universe within 560000 years.
> >>
> >>Of course these numbers are not realistic since there's no way for
> >>people to spread that fast.
> >>But this only increases the problem: Maximum population is not limited
> >>by the number of stars existing but by the number of stars in range
> >>which is at most as large but most likely much smaller (for example when
> >>travelling with less than speed of light).
> >
> > Population rate doesn't have to grow necessarily but you are assuming that it
> > must.
>
> Not that it must, but that it is likely to do. Population was growing
> during the history. Why should it stop?
>
frontal lobes
http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/bfrontal.shtml
> > Sometimes when we open up a particular planet for millions of people we might
> > want to breed a little more and have a sexual revolution and then when the
> > numbers begin to "hurt" it will be easy to promote negative growth. Seems you
are
> > supposing a perpetual third world or developing poor nation or something, but
> > with unlimited energy everybody's got what they need.
>
> There are two possible ways population growth could stop:
>
> 1) Something happening to the behaviour or biologic properties of
> mankind. This would cause something similar to the population deficit we
> are observing in industrialized nations.
> It's not likely this would cause precisely stagnation. Instead it will
> either only slow down population growth (an effect I took into
> consideration) or it will cause a permanent reduction of population
> which would long term cause extinction of mankind (a possibility that
> doesn't add anything to our discussion).
> If these effects are constand long-term they are either leading to
> unlimited growth or to extinction. If not the more frequent effect prevails.
>
> 2) Reduction of population growth due to limited ressources. Then we are
> once again in the situation where we are right now.
>
3) a rational policy like what China once proposed makes sense to humans and they
decide to go for it and lower, raise, or keep level, the reproduction rate based
upon sound policies.
Immortalist
Sounds like one of the ways things could go.
> >> ...
> >>I'm already curious: Germany already declared they won't send troops to
> >>Iraq and as far as I can see France won't either.
> >>
> >>What's left?
> >
> > After the turn over of power and a year or two goes by, the UN may take over
the
> > entire operation. All they gotta do is keep proposing stuff and they will hit
on
> > the policy that the world likes.
>
> UN wouldn't fight a theocracy.
>
Unless they incorperate something into policies and vote on it. Like clauses and
all. But US might fuck em anyway if they go theocratic because we're asses.
> The problem the US are facing is that they invaded Iraq to controll it's
> policy, but handing power over to UN would remove this control.
>
Many countries went into Kuwait to get Saddam out, we had to patrol the skies all
this time, now its done, we really don't care how you interpret it, we are on our
way out of there for real now with Saddamm gone.
> The solution the US are trying is to hand control to NATO which is more
> or less controlled by the US, but this means the job will be done by the US.
>
Time goes on, and no mo Saddamm, game over whicheve way nations have their
periods and moments of weakness.
> >>Italy and Poland? Not likely they'd be able to replace the US, right?
> >
> > Iraq's own military and police force will replace us.
>
> So not Europe? Interesting.
>
Iraq is already building their military. Are you talking far future or something
after the first slap for turnin' theocratic?
> >>...
> >>Once you start pulling out troops - what I don't see happening.
> >
> > I'm not think 10 years nor am I thinking a couple of months either. When Iraq
> > grows their own stuff we begin to pull out all the way.
>
> As far as I can see the US will try to stay in Iraq for a much longer
> time. Not doing so will render the whole invasion useless.
>
> >>Not from Iraq, beacuse this would make the whole situation even less
> >>controlled, and not from Europe where troops are only shifted further
> >>eastwards.
> >
> > As long as we can blast back in if it turns theocratic they can be on their
own
> > once they gain the ability to control their own society.
>
> Yes - of course this would mean to break international law once again
> and to remove the rest of support the US has in the world.
>
> This will be the final split between the US and Europe.
>
Might be, but who cares. Time will continue and the dividers will fall because we
are all really good freinds. US does what the others just wish they could do. We
back out and its the worlds loss not ours.
> >>...
> >>The reason why some people are crying is the fact many US citizens are
> >>leaving that spent their pay here in Europe.
> >>
> >>As far as I am concerned: I'll party as soon as the last US soldier has
> >>left our country.
> >
> > I don't know what country your talking about but it takes time for the world
to
> > change.
>
> I'm living in Germany.
>
Cool.
AE
Immortalist wrote:
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>UN wouldn't fight a theocracy.
>
> Unless they incorperate something into policies and vote on it. Like clauses and
> all. But US might fuck em anyway if they go theocratic because we're asses.
UN doesn't interfere in internal politics at all except this were
requested by the country: UN didn't push for disempowering Saddam
because that's not the job of UN - it was a domestic affair of Iraq.
As well UN won't do anything to fight a theocracy.
>>The problem the US are facing is that they invaded Iraq to controll it's
>>policy, but handing power over to UN would remove this control.
>
> Many countries went into Kuwait to get Saddam out, we had to patrol the skies all
> this time, now its done, we really don't care how you interpret it, we are on our
> way out of there for real now with Saddamm gone.
These nations went to Kuwait because it was attacked by another nation.
The rest of the world has already done more that enough by not defending
Iraq against the US when Bush did right the same to Iraq what Saddam
did a decade before to Kuwait.
>>The solution the US are trying is to hand control to NATO which is more
>>or less controlled by the US, but this means the job will be done by the US.
>
> Time goes on, and no mo Saddamm, game over whicheve way nations have their
> periods and moments of weakness.
Yes - game over for Saddam, now the way is free for islamists.
>>...
>>So not Europe? Interesting.
>
> Iraq is already building their military. Are you talking far future or something
> after the first slap for turnin' theocratic?
Just interesting to see how quickly you are changing your mind :o)
>>...
>>Yes - of course this would mean to break international law once again
>>and to remove the rest of support the US has in the world.
>>
>>This will be the final split between the US and Europe.
>
> Might be, but who cares. Time will continue and the dividers will fall because we
> are all really good freinds.
Let's say allies - that's closer to reality.
> US does what the others just wish they could do. We
> back out and its the worlds loss not ours.
Not at all. What the others are doing is to follow the basic rules:
International affairs are to be regulated by UN, domestic affairs by the
nations themselves.
...
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>way we might transfere heat out there like in light how the sun does or other
>>>ways.
>>
>>Space is neither hot nor cold. Indeed the vacuum of space has an effect
>>similar to the vacuum in a thermos flask: Insulation.
>
> But heat is radiation man, when an object like the Earth sets in space, it
> radiates it's heat out in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
No. Heat is primarily movement of particles.
>>The only way to send heat energy into space is thermal radiation, but
>>this has an upper limit given by temperature and surface.
>
> so we work within area limitations and get rid of all the energy we need to?
No. We work within area limitations and the maximum amount of heat we
can get rid of is limited by our temperature which has to be within the
limits that are acceptable for human life.
>>...
>>Whatever "as much as we need" exactly means. Till now energy consumption
>>is growning and I don't see this process stopping.
>
> But you havn't shown why the curve or relationship between recycling and
> radiating out of energy might change also.
>
> Like you cannot show that population growth necessarily continue how could you
> show that energy growth is necessary. Many uses of energy have decreased with
> more efficiency resulting, like from vacuum tubes to transistors.
True. Nevertheless gross energy consumption was growing.
Of course largest fraction of this growth is caused by a single nation
that doesn't care about efficient usage of energy, but some growth takes
place even in nations that are spending lots of effort in efficient
usage of energy.
>>...
>>My point is simply that it is limited.
>>
>>Mankind tends to expand by population growth or growth of consumption
>>per head of energy and raw material.
>>
>>That's part of human nature, so it won't ever stop.
>
> You have not shown why population will necessarily increase even if you show that
> humans have an instinctual bias to reproduce. They also have an instinctual bias
> to restrict behavior and emotion with their frontal lobes and cingulate gyri.
Interesting hypothesis - can you show this?
>>As a result all ressources, independent how large they are, will be used
>>up sooner or later.
>
> do the atoms disappear?
Not quickly, but they are going to be integrated in structures -
lifeforms, mashines, whatever.
>>A new frontier reduces the pressure for a while, but never permanently.
>
> enough atoms to live till proton decay
By far not.
>>...
>>That's not a question of technology, but indeed of the nature of our
>>universe.
>
> are you saying our technology is up to the nature of our universe and can advance
> no further?
I'm saying there are upper boundaries for technology.
Famous example: Moor's law can't persist longer than for the next 600 years.
>>...
>>There are two possible ways population growth could stop:
>>
>>1) Something happening to the behaviour or biologic properties of
>>mankind. This would cause something similar to the population deficit we
>>are observing in industrialized nations.
>>It's not likely this would cause precisely stagnation. Instead it will
>>either only slow down population growth (an effect I took into
>>consideration) or it will cause a permanent reduction of population
>>which would long term cause extinction of mankind (a possibility that
>>doesn't add anything to our discussion).
>>If these effects are constand long-term they are either leading to
>>unlimited growth or to extinction. If not the more frequent effect prevails.
>>
>>2) Reduction of population growth due to limited ressources. Then we are
>>once again in the situation where we are right now.
>
> 3) a rational policy like what China once proposed makes sense to humans and they
> decide to go for it and lower, raise, or keep level, the reproduction rate based
> upon sound policies.
Of course you are aware that China's policy doesn't stop population
growth but only reduces it?
Immortalist
>
>
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>UN wouldn't fight a theocracy.
> >
> > Unless they incorperate something into policies and vote on it. Like clauses
and
> > all. But US might fuck em anyway if they go theocratic because we're asses.
>
> UN doesn't interfere in internal politics at all except this were
> requested by the country: UN didn't push for disempowering Saddam
> because that's not the job of UN - it was a domestic affair of Iraq.
>
Were those UN instpecters over the years portrayed as going into Iraq media
hallucinations?
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>Right next to our atmosphere is some pretty cold space. Have you eliminated
all
> >>>way we might transfere heat out there like in light how the sun does or
other
> >>>ways.
> >>
> >>Space is neither hot nor cold. Indeed the vacuum of space has an effect
> >>similar to the vacuum in a thermos flask: Insulation.
> >
> > But heat is radiation man, when an object like the Earth sets in space, it
> > radiates it's heat out in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> No. Heat is primarily movement of particles.
>
Horse turds man, you need to learn or review some basic science, electromagnetic
radiation travels through empty space, the void. As in heat transferred to earth
by E.M.F. from the sun?
OR whateve the void is, EMF and heat move through it and heat is radiating off
your body and heat radiates into space.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>requested by the country: UN didn't push for disempowering Saddam
>>because that's not the job of UN - it was a domestic affair of Iraq.
>
> Were those UN instpecters over the years portrayed as going into Iraq media
> hallucinations?
Since Iraq had invaded Kuwait UN decided it would be necessary to make
it impossible for Iraq to launch yet another war. So besides others it
was decided that Iraq would not be allowed to own weapons of mass
destruction to protect other nations from possible attacks.
This was not to interfere in domestic policy of Iraq, but to control
Iraq's foreign affairs.
> ...
AE
> ...
> Horse turds man, you need to learn or review some basic science, electromagnetic
> radiation travels through empty space, the void. As in heat transferred to earth
> by E.M.F. from the sun?
>
> OR whateve the void is, EMF and heat move through it and heat is radiating off
> your body and heat radiates into space.
LOL - indeed electromagnetic waves are transporting energy and indeed
under some conditions this energy is equivalent to a temperature that
was necessary to create this energy and that is the maximum temperature
that can be reached by absorbing this radiation.
Nevertheless the heat energy of an object is not radiation but kinetic
energy, and obviously this is what is of interest within the context:
Mashines are producing energy that is converted to heat energy which has
to be removed from the system the one or other way. For an object in
vacuum there's no other way to get rid of heat energy than by radiation.
The amount of heat emitted in form of radiation is given by
Stefan-Boltzmann's law.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > Horse turds man, you need to learn or review some basic science,
electromagnetic
> > radiation travels through empty space, the void. As in heat transferred to
earth
> > by E.M.F. from the sun?
> >
> > OR whateve the void is, EMF and heat move through it and heat is radiating
off
> > your body and heat radiates into space.
>
> LOL - indeed electromagnetic waves are transporting energy and indeed
> under some conditions this energy is equivalent to a temperature that
> was necessary to create this energy and that is the maximum temperature
> that can be reached by absorbing this radiation.
>
> Nevertheless the heat energy of an object is not radiation but kinetic
> energy, and obviously this is what is of interest within the context:
>
It is irrelevant whether the energy is kinetic or immediate since in either form
when the energy leaves the sun it is subtracted from the heat of the sun.
Radiated kinetic energy from your body or the Earth is subtracted or cools both
to some degree.
Immortalist
Can you defend you assertion that Iraq's weapons programs under Saddam were not
part of his domestic policy or "internal politics," but were exclusively
"external politics?" Seems like posturing but you could argue this way I suppose.
The UN has ways to punish nations that abuse their citizens by internal policies,
and do so.
> > ...
>
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>it impossible for Iraq to launch yet another war. So besides others it
>>was decided that Iraq would not be allowed to own weapons of mass
>>destruction to protect other nations from possible attacks.
>>
>>This was not to interfere in domestic policy of Iraq, but to control
>>Iraq's foreign affairs.
>
> Can you defend you assertion that Iraq's weapons programs under Saddam were not
> part of his domestic policy or "internal politics," but were exclusively
> "external politics?" Seems like posturing but you could argue this way I suppose.
Read UN resolution 687 <http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm>
> The UN has ways to punish nations that abuse their citizens by internal policies,
> and do so.
Give an example.
AE
> AE wrote:
> ...
> when the energy leaves the sun it is subtracted from the heat of the sun.
>
> Radiated kinetic energy from your body or the Earth is subtracted or cools both
> to some degree.
The important point is simply that the amount of energy emitted is
limited (see below).
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>Since Iraq had invaded Kuwait UN decided it would be necessary to make
> >>it impossible for Iraq to launch yet another war. So besides others it
> >>was decided that Iraq would not be allowed to own weapons of mass
> >>destruction to protect other nations from possible attacks.
> >>
> >>This was not to interfere in domestic policy of Iraq, but to control
> >>Iraq's foreign affairs.
> >
> > Can you defend you assertion that Iraq's weapons programs under Saddam were
not
> > part of his domestic policy or "internal politics," but were exclusively
> > "external politics?" Seems like posturing but you could argue this way I
suppose.
>
> Read UN resolution 687 <http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm>
>
I breifly looked at that article and I didn't see where it specified that after
messing with Iraq's internal policies and getting them out of Kuwait, that they
claim they were not messing with internal policies.
> > The UN has ways to punish nations that abuse their citizens by internal
policies,
> > and do so.
>
> Give an example.
>
w e a p o n s
i n s p e c t o r s
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> > ...
> > It is irrelevant whether the energy is kinetic or immediate since in either
form
> > when the energy leaves the sun it is subtracted from the heat of the sun.
> >
> > Radiated kinetic energy from your body or the Earth is subtracted or cools
both
> > to some degree.
>
> The important point is simply that the amount of energy emitted is
> limited (see below).
>
I was arguing the point you made that energy doesn't leave through the void
unless it has matter to go to.
> >>Mashines are producing energy that is converted to heat energy which has
> >>to be removed from the system the one or other way. For an object in
> >>vacuum there's no other way to get rid of heat energy than by radiation.
> >>The amount of heat emitted in form of radiation is given by
> >>Stefan-Boltzmann's law.
> >>
I agree there is a scientifically established limit to the transfer of energy and
heat, but I was saying we can work with that limit. Look how well the sun does
with that limit. We don't need to release that much energy.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
AE
> ...
> I agree there is a scientifically established limit to the transfer of energy and
> heat, but I was saying we can work with that limit. Look how well the sun does
> with that limit. We don't need to release that much energy.
Earth neither has the surface nor the temperature of sun: Amount of
energy emitted is proportional to area and to temperature to the power
of four.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>AE wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>Since Iraq had invaded Kuwait UN decided it would be necessary to make
>>>>it impossible for Iraq to launch yet another war. So besides others it
>>>>was decided that Iraq would not be allowed to own weapons of mass
>>>>destruction to protect other nations from possible attacks.
>>>>
>>>>This was not to interfere in domestic policy of Iraq, but to control
>>>>Iraq's foreign affairs.
>>>
>>>Can you defend you assertion that Iraq's weapons programs under Saddam were not
>>>part of his domestic policy or "internal politics," but were exclusively
>>>"external politics?" Seems like posturing but you could argue this way I suppose.
>
>>Read UN resolution 687 <http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm>
>
> I breifly looked at that article and I didn't see where it specified that after
> messing with Iraq's internal policies and getting them out of Kuwait, that they
> claim they were not messing with internal policies.
The point is simply that getting them out of Kuwait and keeping them
from attacking Kuwait or yet another country is _external_politics_.
Interference in Iraqi internal affairs was acceptable for UN for the
sole purpose to control their external politics.
It would not have been acceptable for example to remove a dictator or a
theocratic government.
>>>The UN has ways to punish nations that abuse their citizens by internal policies,
>>>and do so.
>>
>>Give an example.
>
> w e a p o n s
> i n s p e c t o r s
See above. Do you have a better example?
Immortalist
For our needs there is available heat transfer potential, we have not tapped it
all yet. Its doom and gloom on your part to propose so.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>AE wrote:
> >>>>...
> >>>>Since Iraq had invaded Kuwait UN decided it would be necessary to make
> >>>>it impossible for Iraq to launch yet another war. So besides others it
> >>>>was decided that Iraq would not be allowed to own weapons of mass
> >>>>destruction to protect other nations from possible attacks.
> >>>>
> >>>>This was not to interfere in domestic policy of Iraq, but to control
> >>>>Iraq's foreign affairs.
> >>>
> >>>Can you defend you assertion that Iraq's weapons programs under Saddam were
not
> >>>part of his domestic policy or "internal politics," but were exclusively
> >>>"external politics?" Seems like posturing but you could argue this way I
suppose.
> >
> >>Read UN resolution 687 <http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm>
> >
> > I breifly looked at that article and I didn't see where it specified that
after
> > messing with Iraq's internal policies and getting them out of Kuwait, that
they
> > claim they were not messing with internal policies.
>
> The point is simply that getting them out of Kuwait and keeping them
> from attacking Kuwait or yet another country is _external_politics_.
>
If the allied generals then agreed that it was necessary to drop a nuclear bomb
on Bagdad and make it completely disapear, the UN would have agreed, if this was
the only way to get Saddam out of Kuwait.
> Interference in Iraqi internal affairs was acceptable for UN for the
> sole purpose to control their external politics.
>
> It would not have been acceptable for example to remove a dictator or a
> theocratic government.
>
I don't think I said the UN could do that, I meant the US will hand over control
to the UN under the condition that it can come back in blasting if the installed
institutions revert to unfair theocracy. We will probably demand this, sorry,
religious people can almost control things like in US, but not on paper.
> >>>The UN has ways to punish nations that abuse their citizens by internal
policies,
> >>>and do so.
> >>
> >>Give an example.
> >
> > w e a p o n s
> > i n s p e c t o r s
>
> See above. Do you have a better example?
>
An entire history in many countrie of
p e a c e
k e e p i n g
t r o o p s
somalia
bosnia
etc...
AE
> ...
> For our needs there is available heat transfer potential, we have not tapped it
> all yet.
True. Nevertheless that'S the answer to your question what would be
happening in case an unlimited power source would become available.
The answer is that most likely energy consumption would grow much faster
than yet until the limit given by cooling capacity would be reached.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>sole purpose to control their external politics.
>>
>>It would not have been acceptable for example to remove a dictator or a
>>theocratic government.
>
> I don't think I said the UN could do that, I meant the US will hand over control
> to the UN under the condition that it can come back in blasting if the installed
> institutions revert to unfair theocracy.
The UN couldn't agree to that.
> We will probably demand this, sorry,
> religious people can almost control things like in US, but not on paper.
Good for us: In this case Iraq would stay being a US problem.
But indeed Resolution 1546
<http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement>
tells something different:
"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
their own political future and control their own natural resources."
> ...
> An entire history in many countrie of
>
> p e a c e
> k e e p i n g
> t r o o p s
Peace keeping troops are sent only in agreement with the local
government (see below).
> somalia
UNOSOM I started with the full agreement of the Somali parties.
Further engagement in Somalia (UNITAF) was started since situation in
Somalia escalated and there was no government to control the situation.
> bosnia
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unprof_b.htm:
During the meeting, the Yugoslav parties reached agreement on an
immediate cease-fire and on a number of other issues. Each of the
Yugoslav parties expressed the wish to see the speedy establishment of a
United Nations peace-keeping operation.
> etc...
Do you have a better example?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter of the UN, Article 2.7:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to
submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this
principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter Vll.
Charter of the UN, Chapter VII, Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
Charter of the UN, Chapter VII, Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it
may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations
and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Charter of the UN, Chapter VII, Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in
Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may
include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or
land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Immortalist
Then if we invent an unlimited source of energy you desire that we use more of it
than we can dispose of and you wish that we won't invent a way to dispose of it?
Thats evil sucka!
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>Interference in Iraqi internal affairs was acceptable for UN for the
> >>sole purpose to control their external politics.
> >>
> >>It would not have been acceptable for example to remove a dictator or a
> >>theocratic government.
> >
> > I don't think I said the UN could do that, I meant the US will hand over
control
> > to the UN under the condition that it can come back in blasting if the
installed
> > institutions revert to unfair theocracy.
>
> The UN couldn't agree to that.
>
Then you don't have an understanding of the negotiation process. It may be
unlikely that the UN would accept it but that doesn't necessarily mean there
isn't some exceptional treaty they wouldn't accept where we will blast on Iraq if
theocracy arrives. Notably if the Iraq constitution gives religious freedom and
then some party comes in and tries to take that out of the constitution.
> > We will probably demand this, sorry,
> > religious people can almost control things like in US, but not on paper.
>
> Good for us: In this case Iraq would stay being a US problem.
>
Whatever, as long as religious freedom continues to be ensured in Iraq, we won't
pussy out like other nations would on this kind of thing.
>
> But indeed Resolution 1546
>
<http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement>
> tells something different:
>
> "Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
> their own political future and control their own natural resources."
>
I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> > ...
> > An entire history in many countrie of
> >
> > p e a c e
> > k e e p i n g
> > t r o o p s
>
> Peace keeping troops are sent only in agreement with the local
> government (see below).
>
> > somalia
>
> UNOSOM I started with the full agreement of the Somali parties.
> Further engagement in Somalia (UNITAF) was started since situation in
> Somalia escalated and there was no government to control the situation.
>
> > bosnia
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unprof_b.htm:
>
> During the meeting, the Yugoslav parties reached agreement on an
> immediate cease-fire and on a number of other issues. Each of the
> Yugoslav parties expressed the wish to see the speedy establishment of a
> United Nations peace-keeping operation.
>
> > etc...
>
> Do you have a better example?
>
I could probably find one, but I accept your definition of meddling in internal
affairs and the UN's resistence to doing so.
Ya, all this stuff is negotiable and none set in stone.
>
AE
The simple reson is that using energy carefully is expensive so it is
used only when necessary.
There are tons of good ideas that would work if we only had the energy
necessary.
With the mere idea of an unlimited energy source you've left reality to
some degree, but what you'd as well need is an unlimited energy sink or
you won't be able to use this energy.
BTW cooling is already one of the limiting factors in power plants, so
don't underestimate the problem.
AE
> AE wrote:
> ...
> unlikely that the UN would accept it but that doesn't necessarily mean there
> isn't some exceptional treaty they wouldn't accept where we will blast on Iraq if
> theocracy arrives. Notably if the Iraq constitution gives religious freedom and
> then some party comes in and tries to take that out of the constitution.
Well - the US already failed to convince the UN that invading UN would
be a good idea.
As a result the US had to pay the whole war themselves (they spent less
than 10 billion dollars for the first war) and lost most if not all of
their reputation: Nobody believes any more the US would be the good
guys, and the governments that supported the US are being replaced one
by the others - the one in Spain is gone and so is the one in Poland.
Blair has severe problems and is unable to get back to a productive
inner policy.
If the US start yet another adventure they'll have to do it alone or
with nobody than GB if Blair is willing to commit political suicide.
>>...
>>
>>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
>>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that.
"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
problem with the same system in Iraq?
>>...
>>[Charter of the UN]
>
> Ya, all this stuff is negotiable and none set in stone.
Surely things can be changed, but this would require the acceptance of
the majority of UN if not of all nations.
And why should they do that?
AE
> AE wrote:
> ...
> unlikely that the UN would accept it but that doesn't necessarily mean there
> isn't some exceptional treaty they wouldn't accept where we will blast on Iraq if
> theocracy arrives. Notably if the Iraq constitution gives religious freedom and
> then some party comes in and tries to take that out of the constitution.
Well - the US already failed to convince the UN that invading Iraq would
be a good idea.
As a result the US had to pay the whole war themselves (they spent less
than 10 billion dollars for the first war and almost 100 billion dollars
in the second one, not counting the occupation time) and lost most if
not all of their reputation: Nobody believes any more the US would be
the good guys, and the governments that supported the US are being
replaced successively: the one in Spain is gone and so is the one in
Poland. Blair has severe problems and is unable to get back to a
productive inner policy.
If the US would start yet another adventure they'd have to do it alone
or with nobody than GB if Blair is willing to commit political suicide.
> ...
>>
>>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
>>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that.
"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
problem with the same system in Iraq?
>>...
>>[Charter of the UN]
>
> Ya, all this stuff is negotiable and none set in stone.
Surely things can be changed, but this would require the acceptance of
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> > ...
> > Then you don't have an understanding of the negotiation process. It may be
> > unlikely that the UN would accept it but that doesn't necessarily mean there
> > isn't some exceptional treaty they wouldn't accept where we will blast on
Iraq if
> > theocracy arrives. Notably if the Iraq constitution gives religious freedom
and
> > then some party comes in and tries to take that out of the constitution.
>
> Well - the US already failed to convince the UN that invading Iraq would
> be a good idea.
>
Actually they convinced the UN to invade Iraq in the early 90s.
> As a result the US had to pay the whole war themselves (they spent less
> than 10 billion dollars for the first war and almost 100 billion dollars
> in the second one, not counting the occupation time) and lost most if
> not all of their reputation: Nobody believes any more the US would be
> the good guys, and the governments that supported the US are being
> replaced successively: the one in Spain is gone and so is the one in
> Poland. Blair has severe problems and is unable to get back to a
> productive inner policy.
>
So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not? If not
could we enlist you as a decoy.
> If the US would start yet another adventure they'd have to do it alone
> or with nobody than GB if Blair is willing to commit political suicide.
>
There are so many possible situations where that is not true. There could be any
number of situations where the UN would be more willing than when Saddam invaded
Kuiwat to get countries to invade and we could go in prematurely and the UN would
still come on with support. Your building you own twisted desires here not clear
thinking.
> > ...
> >>
> >>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
> >>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
> >
> > I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> "Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
> free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
>
Not if the people didn't vote for it and vote to change the constitution to
eliminate some religions and merge some departments into religious institutions.
If the people protest a faction or party changing the constitution against their
will the US will be there but most pussy nations won't.
> UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
> problem with the same system in Iraq?
>
> >>...
> >>[Charter of the UN]
> >
> > Ya, all this stuff is negotiable and none set in stone.
>
> Surely things can be changed, but this would require the acceptance of
> the majority of UN if not of all nations.
>
> And why should they do that?
>
Tommorrow will surely tell, unless you got a cryatal ball.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
<snipped stuff that was identical and answered in a parallel post>
> >>...
> >>
> >>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
> >>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
> >
> > I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> "Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
> free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
>
Can you define theocracy? I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. If
they choose all the abuses to gender and individual rights that come along with
most theocracies they can go theocratic. But if individuals or women want more
equal rights but the religious philosophy won't allow it and the religious
constitution doesn't allow a way to remedy the situation, its time for trouble I
say.
> UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
> problem with the same system in Iraq?
>
If the system in Iran became as powerful as Soviet communism was and began
spreading and converting nations, we in USA would fuck them up.
Are they really a threat? But yes any system that lords it over their people
going against the will of their own people, these countries are the enemy.
But I oppose your contention that the UN "has no problem whatsoever" with
religiously controlled states. Some members of the UN would prefer all
theocracies all over the world but this isn't the majority of the UN.
>
Immortalist
> We'd use inevitably more energy if it just were available.
>
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
...why should we have the right to belive conclusions that we arrive at through
inductive logic? Nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way through
induction, and therefore we have no reason for beliving that the sun will rise
tommorow.
> The simple reson is that using energy carefully is expensive so it is
> used only when necessary.
>
> There are tons of good ideas that would work if we only had the energy
> necessary.
>
Then you are claiming we have discovered ALL possible ways to get or make energy
in the universe and that no further advances will be made for thousands of years?
> With the mere idea of an unlimited energy source you've left reality to
> some degree, but what you'd as well need is an unlimited energy sink or
> you won't be able to use this energy.
>
Are you saying all scientists should drop their research tools and back off from
energy?
> BTW cooling is already one of the limiting factors in power plants, so
> don't underestimate the problem.
>
Humans have had many problems in the past, and some of them were even solved,
wow.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>We'd use inevitably more energy if it just were available.
>
> Every day the sun has risen
> The sun rose yesterday
> The sun rose the day before that
> The sun rose the day before that, etc.
> Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
Do you want to bet against that?
> ...why should we have the right to belive conclusions that we arrive at through
> inductive logic? Nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way through
> induction, and therefore we have no reason for beliving that the sun will rise
> tommorow.
Nobody says it's completely impossible that sun won't rise tomorrow -
it's just extremely unlikely.
Indeed there's some probability that all air molecules in my room will
stay in one corner long enough for me to suffocate. But indeed I'm not
worried about that and I wouldn't start a discussion on the base how to
prevent suffocation due to this stochastic effect.
>>The simple reson is that using energy carefully is expensive so it is
>>used only when necessary.
>>
>>There are tons of good ideas that would work if we only had the energy
>>necessary.
>
> Then you are claiming we have discovered ALL possible ways to get or make energy
> in the universe and that no further advances will be made for thousands of years?
With the sentence above I'm just claiming that people will use as much
energy as available as long as they don't hit a different limit due to
energy consumption.
>>With the mere idea of an unlimited energy source you've left reality to
>>some degree, but what you'd as well need is an unlimited energy sink or
>>you won't be able to use this energy.
>
> Are you saying all scientists should drop their research tools and back off from
> energy?
Not at all - I'm just saying that a scientist that bases his research on
the existance of an unlimited energy sink should better go back and
start learning the very basics of natural sciences.
>>BTW cooling is already one of the limiting factors in power plants, so
>>don't underestimate the problem.
>
> Humans have had many problems in the past, and some of them were even solved,
> wow.
Sadly they never solved the problem how to explain something to a person
that simply doesn't want to hear it.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>AE wrote:
>>>>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
>>>>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
>>>
>>>I don't see anything wrong with that.
>>
>>"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
>>free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
>
> Can you define theocracy?
Theocracy is a form of government in which the governmental rulers are
identical with the leaders of the dominant religion, and governmental
policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the
principles of the majority religion.
> I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. If
> they choose all the abuses to gender and individual rights that come along with
> most theocracies they can go theocratic. But if individuals or women want more
> equal rights but the religious philosophy won't allow it and the religious
> constitution doesn't allow a way to remedy the situation, its time for trouble I
> say.
>>UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
>>problem with the same system in Iraq?
>
> If the system in Iran became as powerful as Soviet communism was and began
> spreading and converting nations, we in USA would fuck them up.
If Iran became as powerful they'd do right the same they did with the
SU: Get to an agreement with them.
The US would never attack a nation that would even remotely be able to
defend.
> ...
> But I oppose your contention that the UN "has no problem whatsoever" with
> religiously controlled states. Some members of the UN would prefer all
> theocracies all over the world but this isn't the majority of the UN.
No, but majority of the UN agreed that it's beyond the scope of UN to
tell others what to do in their own country.
Many members might not be happy about the situation in Iran, but most of
them understand that interference in other nation's domestic politics
opens Pandora's box.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>We'd use inevitably more energy if it just were available.
> >
> > Every day the sun has risen
> > The sun rose yesterday
> > The sun rose the day before that
> > The sun rose the day before that, etc.
> > Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
>
> Do you want to bet against that?
>
You have just committed the contradiction involved in (add echo) the lottery
paradox!
(Speed voice to rate of auctioneer) you will have one million cards, each with a
number between one and one million. No number between 1 and 100,000 will be
repeated, there is only one of each number on a million cards. the cards will be
shuffled. You will carefully slide one card out face down so you can't see the
number on the other side. You will insist that all chance of error must not be
eliminated to have certain knowledge. You claim that you are certain that the
number under the card is not 1 based on the odds against it being a million to
one. The instructer snickers and requests that you slide another card out face
down. You will not see the number but calim that you have certain knowledge based
upon one to million odds that that number under the second card is not 2. Too
make a long story short we request that you pull the rest of the cards over with
the other two, all 999,998 remaining cards. If you now claim that the card with
the number 1 is not in the pile based upon the odds against it being one in a
million, we have clear evidence of a contradiction and it would seem that certain
knowledge is not a possibility with even a small chance for error.
Therefore the ordinary speech suggestion that we should not require that all
chance for error be excluded before a person may be said to know, is false.
> > ...why should we have the right to belive conclusions that we arrive at
through
> > inductive logic? Nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way
through
> > induction, and therefore we have no reason for beliving that the sun will
rise
> > tommorow.
>
> Nobody says it's completely impossible that sun won't rise tomorrow -
> it's just extremely unlikely.
>
> Indeed there's some probability that all air molecules in my room will
> stay in one corner long enough for me to suffocate. But indeed I'm not
> worried about that and I wouldn't start a discussion on the base how to
> prevent suffocation due to this stochastic effect.
>
True, I trust my reaoning powers generally, and things will probably go this way
or that. But when you say things like NEVER you are predicting ahead for millions
of years and the odds change a little. Besides "Sensitive Dependence upon Initial
Conditions" in nonlinear dynamics gives a warning that small differences can grow
into gargantuan differences over time.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sensitive+dependence+upon+initial+conditions%22
> >>The simple reson is that using energy carefully is expensive so it is
> >>used only when necessary.
> >>
> >>There are tons of good ideas that would work if we only had the energy
> >>necessary.
> >
> > Then you are claiming we have discovered ALL possible ways to get or make
energy
> > in the universe and that no further advances will be made for thousands of
years?
>
> With the sentence above I'm just claiming that people will use as much
> energy as available as long as they don't hit a different limit due to
> energy consumption.
>
I don't know if that is always true. Its like saing people will always eat food
if given to them until they explode in a frenzy of gastic acids and gas!
> >>With the mere idea of an unlimited energy source you've left reality to
> >>some degree, but what you'd as well need is an unlimited energy sink or
> >>you won't be able to use this energy.
> >
> > Are you saying all scientists should drop their research tools and back off
from
> > energy?
>
> Not at all - I'm just saying that a scientist that bases his research on
> the existance of an unlimited energy sink should better go back and
> start learning the very basics of natural sciences.
>
Now you are saying that you can empirically show how science will NEVER discover
how to configure atoms as to produce an unlimited energy source for free? Man we
goin' round and round man and I'm gettin' dizzy.
> >>BTW cooling is already one of the limiting factors in power plants, so
> >>don't underestimate the problem.
> >
> > Humans have had many problems in the past, and some of them were even solved,
> > wow.
>
> Sadly they never solved the problem how to explain something to a person
> that simply doesn't want to hear it.
>
You love the word "never right? Well I will let you use it like in the sentence
above without saying much.
You are underestimating what we may discover during the next 10,000 years.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>be a good idea.
>
> Actually they convinced the UN to invade Iraq in the early 90s.
Not at all - there were surely fights in the area of Iraq to defend
Kuwait, but invasion of Iraq (meaning: going deeper inwards to get
control over the country) was not part of the mandate.
>>As a result the US had to pay the whole war themselves (they spent less
>>than 10 billion dollars for the first war and almost 100 billion dollars
>>in the second one, not counting the occupation time) and lost most if
>>not all of their reputation: Nobody believes any more the US would be
>>the good guys, and the governments that supported the US are being
>>replaced successively: the one in Spain is gone and so is the one in
>>Poland. Blair has severe problems and is unable to get back to a
>>productive inner policy.
>
> So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
> terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
> ...
I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
terrorists.
>>If the US would start yet another adventure they'd have to do it alone
>>or with nobody than GB if Blair is willing to commit political suicide.
>
> There are so many possible situations where that is not true. There could be any
> number of situations where the UN would be more willing than when Saddam invaded
> Kuiwat to get countries to invade and we could go in prematurely and the UN would
> still come on with support. Your building you own twisted desires here not clear
> thinking.
What you were claiming before was that US could start yet another
adventure without agreement of the UN.
Well, surely they could do, but before doing anything without being
backed by UN they should think twice:
Their policy since 9/11 has increased Antiamericanism dramatically and
it has increased terrorism in many parts of the world in general and
Antiamerican terrorism in particular.
Political support for the US has reached a historic minimum and is still
declining - they never before were as insulated as they are now since
they became an independent nation.
At the same time US economy is in a desperate situation and things are
getting worse beneath others due to spendings for occupation and for
defense spendings.
>>...
>>"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
>>free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
>
> Not if the people didn't vote for it and vote to change the constitution to
> eliminate some religions and merge some departments into religious institutions.
> If the people protest a faction or party changing the constitution against their
> will the US will be there but most pussy nations won't.
Surely the US will find a reason to interfere once again in Iraqi policy
as soon as they learn that Iraqi idea of democracy is different to
their's, but they'd have to interfere once again without UN mandate.
>>...
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>AE wrote:
> >>>>...
> >>>>"Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine
> >>>>their own political future and control their own natural resources."
> >>>
> >>>I don't see anything wrong with that.
> >>
> >>"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
> >>free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
> >
> > Can you define theocracy?
>
> Theocracy is a form of government in which the governmental rulers are
> identical with the leaders of the dominant religion, and governmental
> policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the
> principles of the majority religion.
>
I agree with that definition although vague.
> > I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. If
> > they choose all the abuses to gender and individual rights that come along
with
> > most theocracies they can go theocratic. But if individuals or women want
more
> > equal rights but the religious philosophy won't allow it and the religious
> > constitution doesn't allow a way to remedy the situation, its time for
trouble I
> > say.
>
>
>
> >>UN doesn't have a problem with the system in Iran, why should it have a
> >>problem with the same system in Iraq?
> >
> > If the system in Iran became as powerful as Soviet communism was and began
> > spreading and converting nations, we in USA would fuck them up.
>
> If Iran became as powerful they'd do right the same they did with the
> SU: Get to an agreement with them.
>
We could just let them go or attack them or whatever we want. Or we would
probably try and get an agreement with them unless we were lucky enough to have a
trigger happy sucka at the helm and then blast on em for not alowing their people
to choose their government as they please without changing the ability to choose
incorporated in their institutions.
> The US would never attack a nation that would even remotely be able to
> defend.
>
We attacked Germany and Japan in the past. Again it depends totally upon the
particular situation. Most nations might attack a strong nation at once in some
situations. Use your imagination.
> > ...
> > But I oppose your contention that the UN "has no problem whatsoever" with
> > religiously controlled states. Some members of the UN would prefer all
> > theocracies all over the world but this isn't the majority of the UN.
>
> No, but majority of the UN agreed that it's beyond the scope of UN to
> tell others what to do in their own country.
>
They do tell other nations what to do if they are violating the rights of their
citizens and take out the institutional ability for citizens to choose their
government. Embargos and all that kinda thing. There are some cool new books
about the history of the UN.
> Many members might not be happy about the situation in Iran, but most of
> them understand that interference in other nation's domestic politics
> opens Pandora's box.
>
Of course if the UN takes sides then their workers can be attacked and other
problems. Please don't portray the members as sweet little pure angels.
Besides all the stupid shit is slowely going out of style, some gangs left in the
middle east, big deal. I remember when I was young there was shit happening all
over the world half of which has gone away and some replaced by large booming
economies.
>
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>Well - the US already failed to convince the UN that invading Iraq would
> >>be a good idea.
> >
> > Actually they convinced the UN to invade Iraq in the early 90s.
>
> Not at all - there were surely fights in the area of Iraq to defend
> Kuwait, but invasion of Iraq (meaning: going deeper inwards to get
> control over the country) was not part of the mandate.
>
True, but no body was saying anything when Saddamm's punk ass was on the run.
> >>As a result the US had to pay the whole war themselves (they spent less
> >>than 10 billion dollars for the first war and almost 100 billion dollars
> >>in the second one, not counting the occupation time) and lost most if
> >>not all of their reputation: Nobody believes any more the US would be
> >>the good guys, and the governments that supported the US are being
> >>replaced successively: the one in Spain is gone and so is the one in
> >>Poland. Blair has severe problems and is unable to get back to a
> >>productive inner policy.
> >
> > So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
> > terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
> > ...
>
> I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
> terrorists.
>
Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
> >>If the US would start yet another adventure they'd have to do it alone
> >>or with nobody than GB if Blair is willing to commit political suicide.
> >
> > There are so many possible situations where that is not true. There could be
any
> > number of situations where the UN would be more willing than when Saddam
invaded
> > Kuiwat to get countries to invade and we could go in prematurely and the UN
would
> > still come on with support. Your building you own twisted desires here not
clear
> > thinking.
>
> What you were claiming before was that US could start yet another
> adventure without agreement of the UN.
>
> Well, surely they could do, but before doing anything without being
> backed by UN they should think twice:
>
> Their policy since 9/11 has increased Antiamericanism dramatically and
> it has increased terrorism in many parts of the world in general and
> Antiamerican terrorism in particular.
>
A blip of some wanker middle east gangs making a big noise, their asses are ours
baby, don't doubt it. They fear us not the other way around. You are beginning to
sound weak and scarred.
> Political support for the US has reached a historic minimum and is still
> declining - they never before were as insulated as they are now since
> they became an independent nation.
>
Doom and gloom motha you are, lets hope it continues like this or you might have
to change how you tell want you things to come out like. Most every trend has an
up and a down like waves on the ocean, except you only worship the down side.
> At the same time US economy is in a desperate situation and things are
> getting worse beneath others due to spendings for occupation and for
> defense spendings.
>
LOL your area is still suffering what we are just now pulling out of.
> >>...
> >>"Freely determine their own political future" means as much as they are
> >>free to choose a theocracy if they want to.
> >
> > Not if the people didn't vote for it and vote to change the constitution to
> > eliminate some religions and merge some departments into religious
institutions.
> > If the people protest a faction or party changing the constitution against
their
> > will the US will be there but most pussy nations won't.
>
> Surely the US will find a reason to interfere once again in Iraqi policy
> as soon as they learn that Iraqi idea of democracy is different to
> their's, but they'd have to interfere once again without UN mandate.
>
Maybe if we can re-elect Heil BUSH!
http://images.google.com/images?q=heil%20hitler
We are fuck ups baby and ready to fuck shit up. Step outa line I dare ya.
More realistically if the UN agrees to a constitution and some party comes in an
changes the people's right to change the government as stated in the constitution
without being able to change the part that allows change, and this party changes
the second part there, it might be fun time to party again! Or not, depends if we
feel like it or not then.
> >>...
>
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>defend.
>
> We attacked Germany and Japan in the past.
Is this a new conspiracy theory that Pearl Harbour was initiated by the
US and that the US declared war to Germany and not Hitler to the US?
As far as I know the US stayed out of WW II as long as possible and only
delivered weapons.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
>>>terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
>>>...
>>
>>I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
>>terrorists.
>
> Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
Most Americans in this group try not to call dictators terrorists to
make sure not to define the actions of the US as terrorism.
But independent of that we should ask Iraqi people what is better, US
occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
>> ...
>>Political support for the US has reached a historic minimum and is still
>>declining - they never before were as insulated as they are now since
>>they became an independent nation.
>
> Doom and gloom motha you are, lets hope it continues like this or you might have
> to change how you tell want you things to come out like. Most every trend has an
> up and a down like waves on the ocean, except you only worship the down side.
>
>
>>At the same time US economy is in a desperate situation and things are
>>getting worse beneath others due to spendings for occupation and for
>>defense spendings.
>
> LOL your area is still suffering what we are just now pulling out of.
Well - as far as I can see last time US economy was in a worse situation
than now it was called the great depression, but that time they weren't
as dependent on other nations.
>> ...
AE
> [snipped lots of text that is mor or less out of context]
>
> You are underestimating what we may discover during the next 10,000 years.
There are good reasons to believe that some fundamental limits will stay
in place.
Independent of that new developments are pushing the limits, but your
idea of anything unlimited is as ridiculous as usage of the word "never"
- a word I used only when saying that new developments would never lead
to unlimited ressources :-))
Jeff George
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>
>"AE" <hid...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:casmr9$nn7$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> Immortalist wrote:
>> > So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
>> > terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
>> > ...
>>
>> I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
>> terrorists.
>>
>
>Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
>
Irrelevant to what is going on today.
Best wishes,
Jeff
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
Jeff George
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>Therefore the ordinary speech suggestion that we should not require that all
>chance for error be excluded before a person may be said to know, is false.
"Knowing" is not the same as "theorizing" or "believing".
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
> >>>terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
> >>>...
> >>
> >>I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
> >>terrorists.
> >
> > Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
>
> Most Americans in this group try not to call dictators terrorists to
> make sure not to define the actions of the US as terrorism.
>
> But independent of that we should ask Iraqi people what is better, US
> occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
>
Should we have asked them that when Saddamm was heading into Kuwait or when he
was communicating with Alkiada about how to attack America?
> >> ...
> >>Political support for the US has reached a historic minimum and is still
> >>declining - they never before were as insulated as they are now since
> >>they became an independent nation.
> >
> > Doom and gloom motha you are, lets hope it continues like this or you might
have
> > to change how you tell want you things to come out like. Most every trend has
an
> > up and a down like waves on the ocean, except you only worship the down side.
> >
> >
> >>At the same time US economy is in a desperate situation and things are
> >>getting worse beneath others due to spendings for occupation and for
> >>defense spendings.
> >
> > LOL your area is still suffering what we are just now pulling out of.
>
> Well - as far as I can see last time US economy was in a worse situation
> than now it was called the great depression, but that time they weren't
> as dependent on other nations.
>
Internet bubble. Its over and we are on the rebound, the brick and mortor that
necessarily had to be destroyed is now destroyed. The transition to a digital
economy os rolling along smoothly. Where did you hear such things about the US
economy?
> >> ...
>
Immortalist
"Jeff George" <geor...@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message
news:fng6d0le1ul4k36f3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:37:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>
> >
> >"AE" <hid...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:casmr9$nn7$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> Immortalist wrote:
> >> > So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
> >> > terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
> >> terrorists.
> >>
> >
> >Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
> >
>
> Irrelevant to what is going on today.
>
I think it was AE who told me he was from Germany. He doesn't like American
troops that are still there. Where does it become irrelevant?
Immortalist
Nevertheless your assertion that "The US would NEVER attack nations able to
defend themselves" is refuted. Those nations could defend themselves and we
attacted them, check your logic man.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > [snipped lots of text that is mor or less out of context]
> >
> > You are underestimating what we may discover during the next 10,000 years.
>
> There are good reasons to believe that some fundamental limits will stay
> in place.
>
Limits to what? You mean we won't be able to work around them with 1000s of years
of technological evolution?
> Independent of that new developments are pushing the limits, but your
> idea of anything unlimited is as ridiculous as usage of the word "never"
> - a word I used only when saying that new developments would never lead
> to unlimited ressources :-))
>
I agree in the sense of "infinite" energy. I think I mean more than we could
possibly use when I say unlimited, and recycleable since any atoms can be turned
into other atoms and then atoms can be stacked into any molecules.
Immortalist
"Jeff George" <geor...@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:12:03 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>
> >Therefore the ordinary speech suggestion that we should not require that all
> >chance for error be excluded before a person may be said to know, is false.
>
> "Knowing" is not the same as "theorizing" or "believing".
>
Is your statement, ["Knowing" is not the same as "theorizing" or "believing"] a
belief or an intuition?
To get things clear before this goes to infinite regress, please define
knowledge.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>We attacked Germany and Japan in the past.
>>>...
>>
>>Is this a new conspiracy theory that Pearl Harbour was initiated by the
>>US and that the US declared war to Germany and not Hitler to the US?
>>
>>As far as I know the US stayed out of WW II as long as possible and only
>>delivered weapons.
>
> Nevertheless your assertion that "The US would NEVER attack nations able to
> defend themselves" is refuted. Those nations could defend themselves and we
> attacted them, check your logic man.
Check your logic: In both cases the US were in self-defense.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>in place.
>
> Limits to what?
Limits to energy that can be produced and - even more important - that
can be removed from a system, limits to travel speed, limits to raw
materials, limits to living space.
> You mean we won't be able to work around them with 1000s of years
> of technological evolution?
We'll extend tham, but this won't remove them.
We've dramatically extended our limits within the last 10000 years of
technical evolution, but we always reached new limits.
Interestingly these limits didn't get less painful to us - indeed some
of them went worse.
>>Independent of that new developments are pushing the limits, but your
>>idea of anything unlimited is as ridiculous as usage of the word "never"
>>- a word I used only when saying that new developments would never lead
>>to unlimited ressources :-))
>
> I agree in the sense of "infinite" energy. I think I mean more than we could
> possibly use when I say unlimited, and recycleable since any atoms can be turned
> into other atoms and then atoms can be stacked into any molecules.
I think what we could possible use is a question of imagination.
For example I'd really like to use a gravitation lense as objective in
an stronomic telescope, but this would require about 10% of the mass of
our sun (about 33000 times the mass of earth) not only to be collapsed
to neutron matter but as well to be controlled.
Maybe you got my point? What we are doing today is far beyond
imagination of our ancestors and what our descendants will do will be
beyond our imagination.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>...
>>occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
>
> Should we have asked them that when Saddamm was heading into Kuwait or when he
> was communicating with Alkiada about how to attack America?
Interference when Kuwait was invaded was necessary - maybe it had been
possible to prevent the whole war (including the invasion of Kuwait),
but once that had happened there were good reasons - reasons accepted by
the UN - to stop Iraq. As mentioned before this wasn't an invasion of
Iraq but a response to their foreign policy.
As far as AlQaida is concerned: While there was most likely come
communication between Saddam and AlQaida it's getting more and more
obvious (even for people inside the US) that there was no mutual support
of any form.
>>...
>>Well - as far as I can see last time US economy was in a worse situation
>>than now it was called the great depression, but that time they weren't
>>as dependent on other nations.
>
> Internet bubble. Its over and we are on the rebound, the brick and mortor that
> necessarily had to be destroyed is now destroyed. The transition to a digital
> economy os rolling along smoothly. Where did you hear such things about the US
> economy?
Read the unemployment statistics or have a look at the development of
budget deficit in combination with that one of foreign trade deficit.
Have a look at the development of incomes in the US within the last few
years and compare the difference of upper (fourth quartile growing
slightly, mavericks growing dramatically) and lower income groups
(quartile one and two shrinking) to any time within the last century and
you'll find it was never that drastic since great depression - and it's
worsening.
It was one of the managers of Boeing that mentioned that production of
civile aircraft inside the US will reach zero within the next ten years
and that this couldn't be stopped because of the lack of knowledge in
this area - which itself results from the fact that already most parts
of any aircraft are not only produced but indeed developed outside the US.
It was a German news magazine that mentioned that a large fraction of
oil refined in Germany is getting exported to the US since out-dated US
refineries don't have the capacity to produce the gas spent in the US -
tendency: growing.
Ask anybody that has experienced the US educational system and
infrastructure: It's already bad compared to other leading
industrialized countries and indeed it's decaying.
There are dozens of examples that show that industrial and engineering
capacities of the US are not growing but shrinking. What keeps the US
alive is finance market, but with it's deficits foreign investors are
getting more and more careful that's not a reliable base for US economy.
Of course US policy adds to the problem: Arab investors prefer Europe
since their money isn't secure in the US any more. Number of foreign
students and scientists in the US is shrinking quickly due to arbitrary
restrictions.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>But independent of that we should ask Iraqi people what is better, US
> >>occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
> >
> > Should we have asked them that when Saddamm was heading into Kuwait or when
he
> > was communicating with Alkiada about how to attack America?
>
> Interference when Kuwait was invaded was necessary - maybe it had been
> possible to prevent the whole war (including the invasion of Kuwait),
> but once that had happened there were good reasons - reasons accepted by
> the UN - to stop Iraq. As mentioned before this wasn't an invasion of
> Iraq but a response to their foreign policy.
>
OK, then from here on out we will replace invasion with "response to foriegn
policy?" I can go with that I guess. We were putting some heavy foriegn policy on
Saddams punk ass ass when he be running back to his mamma in Bagdad?
> As far as AlQaida is concerned: While there was most likely come
> communication between Saddam and AlQaida it's getting more and more
> obvious (even for people inside the US) that there was no mutual support
> of any form.
>
Nope & Maybe, maybe enough for your country to set by and risk it not ours.
Saddam planned to attack Americans with the help of AlQueeriadia.
> >>...
> >>Well - as far as I can see last time US economy was in a worse situation
> >>than now it was called the great depression, but that time they weren't
> >>as dependent on other nations.
> >
> > Internet bubble. Its over and we are on the rebound, the brick and mortor
that
> > necessarily had to be destroyed is now destroyed. The transition to a digital
> > economy os rolling along smoothly. Where did you hear such things about the
US
> > economy?
>
> Read the unemployment statistics or have a look at the development of
> budget deficit in combination with that one of foreign trade deficit.
>
Assholes got rich yesterday on Wall street and anybody looking for a job can find
one, but your foriegn news media sucks a pinapple and you like it.
> Have a look at the development of incomes in the US within the last few
> years and compare the difference of upper (fourth quartile growing
> slightly, mavericks growing dramatically) and lower income groups
> (quartile one and two shrinking) to any time within the last century and
> you'll find it was never that drastic since great depression - and it's
> worsening.
>
Bull crap we is the richest mothas on this planet, no one caught up yet. If we
got it your getting it soon.
> It was one of the managers of Boeing that mentioned that production of
> civile aircraft inside the US will reach zero within the next ten years
> and that this couldn't be stopped because of the lack of knowledge in
> this area - which itself results from the fact that already most parts
> of any aircraft are not only produced but indeed developed outside the US.
>
Poor people in the airline industry. We could live without them and continue to
be the richest in the world.
> It was a German news magazine that mentioned that a large fraction of
> oil refined in Germany is getting exported to the US since out-dated US
> refineries don't have the capacity to produce the gas spent in the US -
> tendency: growing.
>
We can change that anytime we desire, not when your rag magazine sends bigotted
love messages.
> Ask anybody that has experienced the US educational system and
> infrastructure: It's already bad compared to other leading
> industrialized countries and indeed it's decaying.
>
Same shit they been saying for decades now. Still the richest assholes and no one
has caught up yet. You sources have mislead you about the importance of things in
relation to what it take to be number one.
> There are dozens of examples that show that industrial and engineering
> capacities of the US are not growing but shrinking. What keeps the US
> alive is finance market, but with it's deficits foreign investors are
> getting more and more careful that's not a reliable base for US economy.
>
Doom and gloom, this isn't enough to stop us don't you see, the future isn't set
by stupid media people who have persuaded you of these things.
> Of course US policy adds to the problem: Arab investors prefer Europe
> since their money isn't secure in the US any more. Number of foreign
> students and scientists in the US is shrinking quickly due to arbitrary
> restrictions.
>
We prefer that you believe things are this way, keeps you busy. Come back when
you can challenge us.
Immortalist
Now you further qualify attacks. Your really a pussy at some points in this
conversation. Now we have offensive attacks and defensive attacks. It doesn't
make sense logically to even continue arguing with you lieing ass.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>...
> >>There are good reasons to believe that some fundamental limits will stay
> >>in place.
> >
> > Limits to what?
>
> Limits to energy that can be produced and - even more important - that
> can be removed from a system, limits to travel speed, limits to raw
> materials, limits to living space.
>
Ok what are the limits to energy that can be produced and that can be removed
from a system, limits to travel speed, limits to raw materials, limits to living
space, and will these limits always be the same and might we learn to alter these
limits or learn to do more than we can now in all these areas with the invention
of better techologies?
> > You mean we won't be able to work around them with 1000s of years
> > of technological evolution?
>
> We'll extend tham, but this won't remove them.
>
We could learn of ways to bypass them.
> We've dramatically extended our limits within the last 10000 years of
> technical evolution, but we always reached new limits.
>
Did I deny there are limits to things? Your really chasing the ball on something
we have agreed on since beginning this conversation. We might avoid the limits
altogether with technology.
> Interestingly these limits didn't get less painful to us - indeed some
> of them went worse.
>
Our future technologies aren't limited by current technological dilemmas.
> >>Independent of that new developments are pushing the limits, but your
> >>idea of anything unlimited is as ridiculous as usage of the word "never"
> >>- a word I used only when saying that new developments would never lead
> >>to unlimited ressources :-))
> >
> > I agree in the sense of "infinite" energy. I think I mean more than we could
> > possibly use when I say unlimited, and recycleable since any atoms can be
turned
> > into other atoms and then atoms can be stacked into any molecules.
>
> I think what we could possible use is a question of imagination.
>
> For example I'd really like to use a gravitation lense as objective in
> an stronomic telescope, but this would require about 10% of the mass of
> our sun (about 33000 times the mass of earth) not only to be collapsed
> to neutron matter but as well to be controlled.
>
> Maybe you got my point? What we are doing today is far beyond
> imagination of our ancestors and what our descendants will do will be
> beyond our imagination.
>
Glad you conceded that point, because they probably will, thats what I'm saying.
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>AE wrote:
>>>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>We attacked Germany and Japan in the past.
>>>>
>>>>US and that the US declared war to Germany and not Hitler to the US?
>>>>
>>>>As far as I know the US stayed out of WW II as long as possible and only
>>>>delivered weapons.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless your assertion that "The US would NEVER attack nations able to
>>>defend themselves" is refuted. Those nations could defend themselves and we
>>>attacted them, check your logic man.
>>
>>Check your logic: In both cases the US were in self-defense.
>
> Now you further qualify attacks.
Ok - let's say it in a way you are more likely to understand: What the
US did when entering WW II was simply saving their ass since trying to
sit back and stay being wartime profiteer would have made them either a
German or a Japanese colony.
> ...
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>AE wrote:
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>But independent of that we should ask Iraqi people what is better, US
>>>>occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
>>>
>>>Should we have asked them that when Saddamm was heading into Kuwait or when
>
> he
>
>>>was communicating with Alkiada about how to attack America?
>>
>>Interference when Kuwait was invaded was necessary - maybe it had been
>>possible to prevent the whole war (including the invasion of Kuwait),
>>but once that had happened there were good reasons - reasons accepted by
>>the UN - to stop Iraq. As mentioned before this wasn't an invasion of
>>Iraq but a response to their foreign policy.
>
> OK, then from here on out we will replace invasion with "response to foriegn
> policy?" I can go with that I guess. We were putting some heavy foriegn policy on
> Saddams punk ass ass when he be running back to his mamma in Bagdad?
Ok - trying to explain it in a way you might understand:
War at the gulf number I:
Goal: Free Kuwait. Action included fightings within Iraq due to the
range of weapons used, but as soon as things were done the US left.
War at the gulf II:
Goal: Occupy Iraq to control Iraqi oil (as far as I know the US are
still importing less oil from Iraq than during the embargo), keep Iraq
from listing their oil in Euros (the only part of the mission that was
indeed accomplished) and to protect Israel (we'll see).
Mission: Get in and hope all are cheering. What then? No idea.
>>...
>>Read the unemployment statistics or have a look at the development of
>>budget deficit in combination with that one of foreign trade deficit.
>
> Assholes got rich yesterday on Wall street and anybody looking for a job can find
> one, but your foriegn news media sucks a pinapple and you like it.
"Foreign news media" like the one mentioning the following:
"Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic
infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging
population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family
income in the lower economic groups."
(source: "The World Factbook", CIA)
>>...
AE
> AE wrote:
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>>AE wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>There are good reasons to believe that some fundamental limits will stay
>>>>in place.
>>>
>>>Limits to what?
>>
>>Limits to energy that can be produced and - even more important - that
>>can be removed from a system, limits to travel speed, limits to raw
>>materials, limits to living space.
>
> Ok what are the limits to energy that can be produced and that can be removed
> from a system, limits to travel speed, limits to raw materials, limits to living
> space, and will these limits always be the same and might we learn to alter these
> limits or learn to do more than we can now in all these areas with the invention
> of better techologies?
Well, there are some very strong limits:
The strongest limit for energy production is given by the amount of mass
and radiation within a given volume. Full annihilation of all matter in
this volume would be the maximum of energy that could be produced in
that volume.
The limit for speed of adding energy to that volume is most likely given
by the amount of matter within a sphere that expands with speed of
light, but independent of speed energy within our universe is an upper
bound.
Raw materials: Quite similar to energy: The strongest limit is the mass
within a volume reachable with speed of light.
A very strong limit to energy that can be removed from a system in
vacuum at temperatures too low to drive Urca-processes is given (as
mentioned before) by heat radiation at operating temperature of the
system. For systems not in vacuum limit is given by the transfer speed
of heat energy in the surrounding system which is limited by but doesn't
reach the absorption capacity of the surrounding system.
This limit is not as strong as the limits to raw material and energy due
to the processes I mentioned above, but it's more important to current
technology and it stays important for all processes taking place at
temperatures where solid matter can exist (indeed at any temperatures
where atoms can exist).
>>>You mean we won't be able to work around them with 1000s of years
>>>of technological evolution?
>>
>>We'll extend tham, but this won't remove them.
>
> We could learn of ways to bypass them.
>
>>We've dramatically extended our limits within the last 10000 years of
>>technical evolution, but we always reached new limits.
>
> Did I deny there are limits to things?
yes
> ...
>>Interestingly these limits didn't get less painful to us - indeed some
>>of them went worse.
>
> Our future technologies aren't limited by current technological dilemmas.
Did I talk about current technological dilemmas?
>>...
>>I think what we could possible use is a question of imagination.
>>
>>For example I'd really like to use a gravitation lense as objective in
>>an stronomic telescope, but this would require about 10% of the mass of
>>our sun (about 33000 times the mass of earth) not only to be collapsed
>>to neutron matter but as well to be controlled.
>>
>>Maybe you got my point? What we are doing today is far beyond
>>imagination of our ancestors and what our descendants will do will be
>>beyond our imagination.
>
> Glad you conceded that point, because they probably will, thats what I'm saying.
Well - that's exactly what I said when mentioning that whatever amount
of energy becomes available it will be used up to the limit.
Thanks for finally accepting my point :-)
Jeff George
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff George" <geor...@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message
>news:29i6d090pekeftvin...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:12:03 -0700, "Immortalist"
>> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>>
>> >Therefore the ordinary speech suggestion that we should not require that all
>> >chance for error be excluded before a person may be said to know, is false.
>>
>> "Knowing" is not the same as "theorizing" or "believing".
>>
>
>Is your statement, ["Knowing" is not the same as "theorizing" or "believing"] a
>belief or an intuition?
>
A statement based on common usage of words.
>To get things clear before this goes to infinite regress, please define
>knowledge.
>
Knowledge is having information that can be objectively proven.
Regards,
J
Jeff George
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff George" <geor...@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message
>news:fng6d0le1ul4k36f3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:37:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
>> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>>
>> >
>> >"AE" <hid...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:casmr9$nn7$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> >> Immortalist wrote:
>> >> > So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill the
>> >> > terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it or not?
>> >> > ...
>> >>
>> >> I'd say US troops rolling into my country are a worse threat than
>> >> terrorists.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Then you would rather have had Hitler win?
>> >
>>
>> Irrelevant to what is going on today.
>>
>
>I think it was AE who told me he was from Germany. He doesn't like American
>troops that are still there. Where does it become irrelevant?
>
If we're talking specifically about Germany, it's because Hitler is
dead and American troops aren't needed there to help kill terrorists,
which is your claim.
Here's what you said:
"So if terrorists start blowing your country up you won't help us kill
the terrorists when we roll into your country whether the UN likes it
or not?"
Let's put out a hypothesis. Let's say that you are an American who
lives in California. The morning of 12-Sep-01 you wake up to see
Chinese and North Korean tanks and infantry rolling down your streets.
They are there because they've decided to help kill terrorists. Are
you ok with that?
Regards,
J
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Immortalist wrote:
> >>>AE wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>But independent of that we should ask Iraqi people what is better, US
> >>>>occupation or a domestic dictator :-/
> >>>
> >>>Should we have asked them that when Saddamm was heading into Kuwait or when
> >
> > he
> >
> >>>was communicating with Alkiada about how to attack America?
> >>
> >>Interference when Kuwait was invaded was necessary - maybe it had been
> >>possible to prevent the whole war (including the invasion of Kuwait),
> >>but once that had happened there were good reasons - reasons accepted by
> >>the UN - to stop Iraq. As mentioned before this wasn't an invasion of
> >>Iraq but a response to their foreign policy.
> >
> > OK, then from here on out we will replace invasion with "response to foriegn
> > policy?" I can go with that I guess. We were putting some heavy foriegn
policy on
> > Saddams punk ass ass when he be running back to his mamma in Bagdad?
>
> Ok - trying to explain it in a way you might understand:
>
> War at the gulf number I:
> Goal: Free Kuwait. Action included fightings within Iraq due to the
> range of weapons used, but as soon as things were done the US left.
>
LOL, forgets the long part about sanctions, overflys, and bombings, and proposals
and more bombing, and oil for food deals and 8 years of Clinton fucking Saddam.
Dude you seriously need to reaxamine your knowledge about what happened in Iraq.
Don't your kind usually mention the million children that died because of our
sanctions during 12 years of fucking Saddam's little behind?
> War at the gulf II:
> Goal: Occupy Iraq to control Iraqi oil (as far as I know the US are
> still importing less oil from Iraq than during the embargo), keep Iraq
> from listing their oil in Euros (the only part of the mission that was
> indeed accomplished) and to protect Israel (we'll see).
> Mission: Get in and hope all are cheering. What then? No idea.
>
Pull out, let the Iraqis take over, bomb any fuckers who fuck with them, we aint
playing. Get Bush re-elected and flip a coin, make up or find excuse to get into
Syria or Iran and fuck shit up into there arses. Now that Iran is being defient
with its nukes, you know now, da boss don't like that attitude now -no-no-no, we
might start blowin' their asses off before the re-election.
> >>...
> >>Read the unemployment statistics or have a look at the development of
> >>budget deficit in combination with that one of foreign trade deficit.
> >
> > Assholes got rich yesterday on Wall street and anybody looking for a job can
find
> > one, but your foriegn news media sucks a pinapple and you like it.
>
> "Foreign news media" like the one mentioning the following:
>
> "Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic
> infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging
> population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family
> income in the lower economic groups."
>
You are seriously mislead dude. People are not standing on the corner with
Apple-carts like in the Great Depression. The US economy is the richest in the
world. Doom and gloom predictions like the one you pasted are just that
predictions. Come back when we become number two richest country in the world.
Number two aint bad. That you dream of America becoming number two is your
problem, get over it and roll with the way things are. Great Depression my ass,
you are lost in space. The line at the Bank isn't very long and I don't see
everyone checking out their money.
> (source: "The World Factbook", CIA)
>
Pretty good source of information for some subjects. But maybe the CIA got a line
on it because Bush is like Reagan and this is how Republicans run an economy.
They surf along those trend pretty close. Democrats succeed in raising all those
trends and everything "looks" healthy, but its the same shit, we are number one
richest country for a long time.
> >>...
>
Immortalist
"Jeff George" <geor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l4d9d0dtorn0pt1hu...@4ax.com...
They wouldn't declared a war on terrorists by then, that comes some time down the
line. But yes we will accept them if they want to join the coalition, but we da
boss.
I said we roll into his country whether the UN likes it or not because we know
the UN is going to allow a coalition to go in but they take longer than immidiate
action which save many lives more than waiting for the UN to agree. Pay attention
at least before you jump in the middle of a conversation man. We were talking
about response times.
> Regards,
> J
Immortalist
OK - now lets put in perspective what you did logically so you are more likely to
understand you mistake here: You said America would never attack a country that
could fight back, but you snipped that out so you might have forgotten. I gave
two examples of where America attacted two countries that could defend
themselves. Then you went off on some rant about attacks.
Once again, you said America would not attack a country that could fight back and
I gave a disconfirming instance in which they did.
> > ...
>
Immortalist
I agree with those definitions. Were you under the impression that I would not
have agreed with them?
> >>>You mean we won't be able to work around them with 1000s of years
> >>>of technological evolution?
> >>
> >>We'll extend tham, but this won't remove them.
> >
> > We could learn of ways to bypass them.
> >
> >>We've dramatically extended our limits within the last 10000 years of
> >>technical evolution, but we always reached new limits.
> >
> > Did I deny there are limits to things?
>
> yes
>
If I did I was either mistaken or not paying attention. Is it possible for you to
find where I did so?
> > ...
> >>Interestingly these limits didn't get less painful to us - indeed some
> >>of them went worse.
> >
> > Our future technologies aren't limited by current technological dilemmas.
>
> Did I talk about current technological dilemmas?
>
Yes, by referring to limits in a way that current technological interpretations
shall always prevail and never be improved or added to with further research.
> >>...
> >>I think what we could possible use is a question of imagination.
> >>
> >>For example I'd really like to use a gravitation lense as objective in
> >>an stronomic telescope, but this would require about 10% of the mass of
> >>our sun (about 33000 times the mass of earth) not only to be collapsed
> >>to neutron matter but as well to be controlled.
> >>
> >>Maybe you got my point? What we are doing today is far beyond
> >>imagination of our ancestors and what our descendants will do will be
> >>beyond our imagination.
> >
> > Glad you conceded that point, because they probably will, thats what I'm
saying.
>
> Well - that's exactly what I said when mentioning that whatever amount
> of energy becomes available it will be used up to the limit.
>
You have not shown that, we have all this air and water available but its not
used up to the limit. There is all this oil in the ground and it will take some
time to use it, there is all this energy locked up in atoms we havn't begun to
tap.
> Thanks for finally accepting my point :-)
>
I said you agreed to my point about what future generations can do with further
development of the imagination which is beyond our imagination which you are
using now in your arguments about then.
Immortalist
Knowledge is having a belief about information?
>
> Regards,
> J
AE
From my point of view there's an important difference between a war of
agression like the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq where the
attacker has the choice to stay away of these other nations and a war
that is started by the opposite side.
What would have been a more likely contradiction of my argument would
have been the fact that the US already had started interfering in WW II
by supporting the Britains and by attacking German submarines, but on
the other hand submarines were targets that might have been a danger for
US ships but no way for the US territory.
So indeed I stay with my claim that US wouldn't do the first step into
war if the opponent would be likely to defend - no offense intended:
It's a prudent strategy to attack weak opponents to spread terror even
under stronger ones. By occupying Iraq they've impressed Iran which
would have been a much harder target to hit.
Independent of that this rule wasn't that strict in the time when US
were growing into their role as a superpower, but it's definitely true
today - in a time where they try to defend their status while the
wannabe-empire is more and more breaking apart.
AE
> Jeff George wrote:
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>>...
>>>To get things clear before this goes to infinite regress, please define
>>>knowledge.
>>
>>Knowledge is having information that can be objectively proven.
>
> Knowledge is having a belief about information?
There are several types of knowledge depending on the different ways to
prove an information:
1) Mathematical proves: They are very abstract, but following a strict
and formalized logic there is absolute knowledge.
"PI is an irrational number"
2) Repeatable experiments: This knowledge is not absolute in the sense
of a mathematical prove, but for any practical purpose it is equal.
Newton's first and secpond law are good examples for this kind of knowledge.
AE
> ...
> People are not standing on the corner with
> Apple-carts like in the Great Depression.
Give Bush four more years and then check again.
AE
> ...
> I said we roll into his country whether the UN likes it or not because we know
> the UN is going to allow a coalition to go in but they take longer than immidiate
> action which save many lives more than waiting for the UN to agree. Pay attention
> at least before you jump in the middle of a conversation man. We were talking
> about response times.
Not at all. We weren't talking about response times, since the UN would
- and indeed could - never have agreed to occupation of Iraq: It was an
unprovoked war and that way against international law, and all the
constructed evidence and faked material the US delivered to get support
for their war didn't resist any scrutiny.
Maybe you should pay attention when taking part in a conversation form
the very beginning?
AE
> ...
> I agree with those definitions. Were you under the impression that I would not
> have agreed with them?
> ...
> If I did I was either mistaken or not paying attention. Is it possible for you to
> find where I did so?
Answer to both questions:
Just look up the thread so far an search for the word "unlimited".
But while you are nitpicking when reading other people's posts you might
just be careless with your own words?
>>>...
>>>>Interestingly these limits didn't get less painful to us - indeed some
>>>>of them went worse.
>>>
>>>Our future technologies aren't limited by current technological dilemmas.
>>
>>Did I talk about current technological dilemmas?
>
> Yes, by referring to limits in a way that current technological interpretations
> shall always prevail and never be improved or added to with further research.
Look up the thread so far: I never did this.
> ...
> You have not shown that, we have all this air and water available but its not
> used up to the limit. There is all this oil in the ground and it will take some
> time to use it, there is all this energy locked up in atoms we havn't begun to
> tap.
Indeed we are using as much as what is available with our current
technology.
In the very beginning of the discussion you raised the question whether
I would believe the problems like today's limitation of raw materials in
general and limitation of petroleum ressources in special would persist
forever.
My response was that I'm quite sure this would be the fact because
independent of how much available ressources would grow in future tere
will always be limits, and I don't see any reason to believe that
mankind would stop increasing it's consumption of whatever ressources as
long as they are available.
> ...
Immortalist
Reagan had eight years and played it just like Bush which is typical Republican
governmental management. But you act as if you have a crystal ball, how would you
show that these conservative approaches must lead to depression?
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > ...
> > I said we roll into his country whether the UN likes it or not because we
know
> > the UN is going to allow a coalition to go in but they take longer than
immidiate
> > action which save many lives more than waiting for the UN to agree. Pay
attention
> > at least before you jump in the middle of a conversation man. We were talking
> > about response times.
> > ...
>
> Not at all. We weren't talking about response times, since the UN would
> - and indeed could - never have agreed to occupation of Iraq: It was an
> unprovoked war and that way against international law, and all the
> constructed evidence and faked material the US delivered to get support
> for their war didn't resist any scrutiny.
>
The media planted faked material in your head by making you believe the
administration had made a connection between 9/11 and Saddamm. You cannot show
Bush saying that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddamm so you are wrong
and misleading people with lies.
> Maybe you should pay attention when taking part in a conversation form
> the very beginning?
>
Maybe you should stop snipping out only those parts that may hurt your side of
the conversation like a bigot would. Dishonest if you ask me.